Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/awardoffisherycoOShaliuoft 


cr bare 


ve 


aan 
a) a 
_ =-*.' 


| aril Holi fay, CB naigeton STC. 


a ada AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS 


OF THE 
* 


HALIFAX COMMISSION, 1877 


UNDER THE 


TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF MAY 8, 1871. 


IN THREE VOLUMES. 


VOLUME III. 


WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 
1878. 


¥ Way 


a, ra 


es 


Le 


-_ _ 
| | ' — 
> n naa 
aD : e 
at - es 
os * ve . ‘F 
a ; 
. Pi, \ tks sa 
, - 
’ > +. ’ 
7 6 ae 
fix . v7 60 ty bey 
. ie ; 
‘ 
r : 
coe 
> 
; * 


7 


. 
dig ow / | 
; 
‘ 
% 
¥.? : 4 
3 
A 


A 


am 


APPENDIX L. 
[Continued.| 


No. 32. 


MicnAEL MACAULAY, of Gloucester, Mass., fisherman and master 
mariner, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, 
sworn and examined. * 


By Mr. Foster : 


Question. You are skipper of a schooner out of Gloucester ?—Answer. 
Yes. ‘ 

Q. What is the name ?—A. The Noonday. 

Q. Where were you born 7—A. In Prince Edward Island. 

@. How many years have you been fishing?—A. About twelve 
years. , ; 

" Q. The first part of the time for mackerel and at present for cod ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. How do you happen in here?—A. I came in here with a sick man 
from the Grand Banks. 

Q. And you have been in command of this vessel two Sears ?—A. 
Yes; about that. 

Q. Before that you were fishing as a sharesman?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many years were you cod-fishing 7—A. Seven years, I guess. 

Q. Where ?—A. On the Grand Bank. 

Q. Now, when you began to go cod-fishing to the Grand Bank, how 
did yeu supply yourselves with bait ?—A. We took itfrom home. We 
used to get some on the Banks in the summer time. 

Q. What did you take with you?—A. Salt bait, pogy slivers. 

Q. Slivers’are pogies and menhaden cut off the bones ?—A. Fish cut 
off the bone each side. 

Q. What else?—A, We used to put that on, and what we used to pick 
up on the Bank; small halibut and other small fish. 

Q. How long is it since you began to go to Newfoundland for bait?— 
A. Well, it is avout four years since I have first been there for herring. 
I guess we were there as soon as any of them. 

Q. When you go to Newfoundland for herring, how do you get it ?— 
A. We take it out of the seines. 

Q. How do you pay for it?—A. We pay so mach. 

Q. How much, usually?—A. Well, there are certain times they 
charge pretty high. At other times they don’t charge so high. We 
paid as high as $25 this summer, and took as much as we wanted. 

Q. How many times have you been in this summer for bait?—A. I 
have been in for herring twice. 3 


¢ 


\ 


2328 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What else have you been for 7?—A. Squid, twice. 

Q. How did you get squid ?—A. Well, they caught them; jigged and 
took them alongside the first time, and we bought them salted the second 
time. 

Q. Who jigged them the first time ?—A. The natives. 

Q. How much did you pay for them ?—A. Two dollars a barrel. 

Q. The salt squid did you get last time ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Does this answer for bait 7—A. Itis not so good; but we could not 
get anything else. 

Q. How many times have you been to Newfoundland for bait ?—A. 
Since I have been skipper ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Well, 1 have been about six times in two years. 

Q. And how many times did you go before that, while yon were shares- 
man ?—A. I have been back and forward for the last re! ily I have 
been there as much as, I suppose, ten or twelve times before I went 
skipper. 

Q. Now, won’t you tell the Commissioners what is the longest and 
what is the shortest time that it has ever taken to go from the Bank into 
Newfoundland to get bait and return to the fishing grounc ?—A. The 
- shortest time I have been would be about nine days. — 

Q. What is the longest ?—A. I have been four weeks. 

Q. How did that happen ?—A. I could not get it. I was hunting it 
up, trying to get it. 

Q. Now, you have fished with salt bait taken from home, not going 
near Newfoundland, and you have gone in as a skipper half a dozen 
times, and as sharesman ten or twelve times to buy bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I want you to state whether in your opinion the advantages of 
going to Newfoundland to procure bait are worth anything.—A. Well, 
when we used to carry bait from home, we used to catch some fish, 
but since we went to run fresh bait we didn’t catch half the quantity we 
used to catch, I don’t think, when we used to take bait from home, be- 
cause we lose half our time and more looking for fresh bait. 

Q. You dose half your time ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You don’t consider it an advantage ?—A. No; I don’t consider it 
an advantage at all. 

Q. Have you ever got caplin there for bait?—A. No; I never took 
any caplin. Ihave never been in a vessel that had any. 

Q. Now, before you were cod-fishing you made some mackerel voyages, 
I think ?—A. Yes; I have been four or five years for mackerel before L 
went for cod. 

Q. What vessels were you in? Begin with the earliest mackerel 
schooner you were in.—A. I have been.in the Moonlight. That was the 
first vessel, John Spriggan, captain. 

Q. What year ?—A, ‘About 1865, I guess. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take that year tA, Well, 
I took off and on about 150 barrels, I guess. 

; Q. Where did you take them ?—A. Most of them around the Magda- 
ens. 

Q. What was the next schooner you were in ?—A. The Easterwood, 
Captain Galasky. 

@. How many barrels of mackerel did you take in her?—A. Well, 
recs 180 and 19. I could not be certain; off and on, about 
that 

Q. Where were they taken ?—A. We caught them between the North 
Cape and around the Magdalens; up between the Magdalens and North 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~ 2329 


Cape. We used to fish in different places, but the most part was taken 
around the Magdalens. , 

Q. What was the third schooner you were in?—A. The Charles P. 
Thompson. No, I was mistaken. The second schooner I was in was 
the James Bliss. 

Q. Who was the captain 7—A. James Walsh. 

Q. How many barrels did you take in her ?—A. Two hundred and 
forty. ; 

Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Part of them to the northward of 
North Oape, what we call Bradley Bank, and abroad off North Cape. 

Q. Were any of those taken within three miles ?—A. No, we didn’t 
catch any. I don’t know but we tried and got a few there, but not any- 
thing over a @ozen or So. 

Q. Where was that?—A. It was to the westward of North Cape— 
what they call Tignish. 

Q. You think you caught a dozen barrels inshore ?—A. No, not a 
dozen; we might have caught a dozen or twenty mackerel to @ man. 

Q. What'was the fourth vessel you were in mackereling 7—A. The 
Charles P. Thompson was the fourth. 

Q. What year was that, do you remember ?—A. Well, it was about 
1869, I guess. 

Q. Who was her captain ?—A. Edward Cash. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take in her?—A. About 
95 barrels; between that and 100. We caught them up northward. 

Q. Was she a new vessel ?—A. No. * The James Bliss was a hew ves- 
sel. 

Q. Now I would ask you, so far as your observation goes, what is 
the principal fishing-ground for mackerel-schooners in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence ?—A. Where I have principally fished in my time was 
around the Magdalens. That was the principal ground in my going to 
fish. 

Q. Did you ever fish much off the Bight of Prince Edward, Island ?— 
A. No, I never did. 

Q. Have you been there ?—A. Yes; I have been there working up 
and down shore, but I never fished any there. I might have tried 
abroad off East Point, or abroad off the North Cape ; but I have never 
been in a vessel that fished in the bend of the island, because it is a 
place where they don’t want to fish very often. 

Q. Why not?—A. Because they don’t like the ground. They don’t 
like to fish. They don’t call it a very safe place to fish. 

Q. Is it-a place that is avoided by —— A. Fishermen? Yes. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because it is a place where, if they are caught with 
the wind easterly or northeasterly, we can’t get out. 

Q. You lived at Prince Edward Island 20 years 7—A. Yes; I was 
born there and lived there until I came to Gloucester. 

Q. Do you ever fish there from theshore 2—A. Well, I have gone fish- 
ing there ffom the shore. What part of the island did you live at I 
A. At St. Peter’s, right in the bend. 

- Q. Did yon ever see boats fishing on the island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I would like to know how far from the shore these fishing boats 
‘around Prince Edward Island go out for mackerel, or used to when you 
were there ?—A. I would judge in my way that they would go from three 
to five miles. . 

Q. One question more; as you have been sailing out of Gloucester 
now tor some years, what is the principal fishing business of Glouces- 
ter?—A. I should think codfish and halibut the principal. 


2330 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Davies: 
Q. You lived at St. Peter’s?—A. Yes. 
Q. How long since you lived on the island ?—A, Twelve years. 
Q. That would be 1865?—A. Yes. 
Q. That was when yon first went in the Moonlight ?—A. Yes, 
Q. You have never been on the island since you left there ?—A. No. 
Q. How old are you now ?—A. About 33. 
Q. You left the island when you were about 21 ?—A. Yes, 
. Are your people engaged much in St. Peter’s in the fisheries ?— 
A. They do go fishing a good deal. They catch fish enough for them- 
selves any way. 

Q. That is just what I want to know. I never understood that you 
engaged in the fisheries largely ?—A. Well, they catch #lways enough 
for themselves. I don’t know that they catch any more. That is all, I 
guess, 

Q. There are no fishing-stages there ?—A. No, they can’t keep fishing- 
stages there. 

Q. It is a very exposed place ?—A. To my recollection that is so. 

Q. Then you never were at any of the fishing-stages fishing on the 
island ?—A. No. 

Q. You never were to Rustico, New London, Caseumpee, or Tignish ? 
—A. No. 

Q. You never saw them fishin g there ?—A. I haveseen the boats fish- 
ing there. p 

Q. Will you venture the assertion that those boats fishing off those 
places fish farther than three miles?—A. I should think off Rustico they 
fish as much as ten miles. : 

Q. As a general rule, you think that ?—Yes, because it is a place with 
Shoal water, and they have to go quite a piece off. ; 

Q. Do you give that as your actual opinion or mere supposition ?—A, 
My opinion is that I have seen them ages outside of ten miles. 

Q. Where?—A. Where I have been fishing up and down in those 
vessels. 

Q. But you have said you never fished around Prince Edward Island ? 
—A. Well, I said I have made passages up and down the island. 

Q. What year was that you made passages ?—A, Well, probably I 
have been—I don’t know-=but I have been every year I have been in the 
bay. Probably we might work up from the northward up as far as 
East Point. 

Q. Now, every man who was brought here from Rustico, and every 
man at Rustico who has made an affidavit, has stated that three- 
fourths to nine-tenths of the fish caught in that harbor are caught 
within three miles of land. . 

Mr. Foster objects to this question, for which, after a short argu- 
ment, the following question was substituted. 


By Mr. Davies: . 
Q. Here is a deponent, Alexander MeNeil, who says: 


I would think the number of fishing-boats at Rustico harbors would number about one 
hundred and fifty. 

My twenty years’ experience has proved to me that the best mackerel-fishing around our 
coast is about a mile from the shore, in from 7 to 10 fathoms of water. | ; 

All the fish caught by the boats are taken within a mile of the coast, many of them witH- 
in half a mile, during the months of July and August, but during the months of September 
and October the boats take their catch farther out, say two miles or two and a half, It isa 
ey rare occasion that they go out three miles or beyond it. 

f the total catch in the boats, over nine-tenths is caught well within the three-mile 


© 


limit. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.  - 2331 


Have you sufficient experience off Rustico Harbor to give evidence 
in contradiction of that I have read ?—A, Well, I state what I have 
said. I have seen boats over ten miles fishing for mackerel off Rustico. 

Q. Have you had sufficient experience of fishing off Rustico to give 
any evidence?—A. I have never fished off Rustico. 

Q. Will you say it is true or not?—A. I can’t tell. 

Q. How far have you been fishing off Rustico Harbor 7—A. I never 
fished. 

Q. How often have you passed within three miles there ?—A. I don’t 
know—very seldom. ; 

Q. Did you ever ?—A. I don’t know that I did. 

Q. Then you can’t possibly tell whether the boats fish there dr not — 
A. I say I haye seen them fishing off ten miles. 

Q. Were they large or small boats ?—A. Large. 

Q. How often have you seen them fish off ten miles ?—A.' Five or six 
times. 

Q. Is that as often as you have been there ?—A. Probably that is as 
often. 

Q. Have you seen them fishing in other parts of the island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What other parts ?—A. Up. and down the shore. I have seen 
boats off shore fishing. 

Q. Now, here is Daniel Ross, of Rustico, fish merchant. He says: 

I myself am a practical fisherman and engage personally in the catching and curing as 
well as in the sale of the fish. 

That the best mackerel-fishing is about one mile or one mile and a half from the coast-line 
. ri shore, and very pecaratly the best catches are made much closer to the shore than 
that. 

That the mackerel-fishing prosecuted in boats from the shore is chiefly within the limit of 
two miles; at times the schools of mackerel go farther out, extending as far as three miles 
and beyond that, but I have no hesitation in positively swearing that at least nine-tenths 
iA Na of the mackerel caught by the boat-fishermen are caught within the three-mile 

mit. 

Would you like, from your experience, to contradict that 7—A. I 
could not tell you where they were caught, but I have said what I have 
said, that I have seen them fishing outside of three miles. 

Q. How many boats did you see there 2A. I didn’t count them. 

Q. I want to know if you yourself ever fished up and down the coast 
of the island ?—A. I might have tried, but never anything inside of 
three miles. I have never been in within three miles. 

-Q. When you were living on the island did you never see the Ameri- 
can fleet sailing up and down ?—A. Often. 

Q. Many of them ?—A. There used to be a good many. 

Q. What number used you consider there were 2—A. I could not tell; 
I don’t know that I ever counted. 

Q. How many was the fleet of American vessels supposed to be ?—A. 
_ How many vessels ? 

Q. Yes. How many American vessels were there in the fleet sailing 
up and down ?7—A. Sometimes as high as three or four; sometimes ten 
or fifteen. . 

Q. Did you ever see as many as 100 at one time going past 7—A. No. 

Q. What would take them into that dangerous place ?—A. Many of 
them passed up and down, probably —— 

Q. Have you any idea that they were fishing ?—A. They may have 
been some of them fishing half way across. i 

Q. You could not see that?—A. Well, you could see them half way 
across. 


2332 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What? Twenty-eight miles from shore ?—A. It is dely twenty- 
eight miles across from East Point to Magdalen Islands. 

Q. You were not at East Point. You were at St. si —A. You 
can’t tell. I have been up and down. 

Q. Well, you say, then, you have been at East Point a I have been 
there often. 

Q. Have you ever seen the fleet around East Point 7—A. I have seen 
vessels in there, 

Q. That is not what I asked you. Have you ever seen the-fleet there ? 
—A. Yes; I have seen the fleet. 

Q. How many would you see ?—A. Probably fifteen or twenty. 

_ Q. You have never seen them within three miles there ?—A. Not 
fishing—I never did. 

Q. Have you seen them at all within three miles?—A. I have seen 
them sailing within three miles. 

Q. Fifteen or twenty ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were they not fishing ?—A. I could not say they were fishing. 

Q. Could you say they were not fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How could you say that ?—A. They were sailing. They don’t fish 
when they are sailing. 

Q. Have you never seen them within three miles unless they are sail- 
ing ?—A. I have seen them at anchor within three miles. 

Q. What were they doing there then?—A. They were making lee; it 
was blowing too hard. 

Q. You don’t know whether they were fishing then or not ?—A. I never 
saw them. 

Q. They go there for shelter, to that dangerous place ?—A. There is 
no danger there. They have a way to get out of that part of the bay; 
‘but in the bend they haven’t. 

Q. Did you ever catch fish in Bay Chaleurs?—A. I did. 

Q. In what vessel ?—A. Well, what do you call Bay Chaleurs ? 

Q. Don’t you know? Asa master- -mariner, don’t you know where Bay 
Chaleurs is ?—A. Well, I have fished across from the Magdalens. 

Q. But don’t you know what Bay Chaleurs is?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, why do you ask me?—A. Well, I call it right across from 
Magdalens to Bay Chaleurs. Wherever we fish down there we call it 
Bay Chaleurs. 

Q. You eall it Bay Chaleurs ?—A. Yes; [call it Bay Chaleurs fishing. 

Q. It has a good reputation for fishing, has it, the Bay Chaleurs; 
has it, among American fishermen ?—A. Well, that is what I always 

hear them call it. 

a Q. Have you ever been in the Bay Chaleurs proper fishing?—A. Yes, 
I have. 

Q. In what vessel ?—A. I have been in the Charlies P. Thomson. 

Q. Any other ?—A. I might be in the James Bliss too. 

Q. Might you in any other vessel ?—A. No. 

Q. Will you swear you were not in Bay Chaleurs i in the Moonlight or 
Easterwood ?—A. I might be there working up and down. I don’t 
know if ever I fished in there. 

Q. You have no recollection of ever fishing in the Bay Chaleurs ?—A. 
I don’t know if ever I fished there. 

Q. In the other two vessels you did; where did you fish ?—A. We tried 
once at North Cape; that is, in the bay and well to the westward of it. 
~ Q. Point out on ‘the map where North Cape is.—A. Well, I know 
where it is. 

Q. I want you to show it on the map.—A. (Witness points to North 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 235m. 


Cape, Prince Edward Island.) That (pointing to waters between North 
Cape and Miramichi Bay) is what I call Bay Chaleurs fishing. 

Q. Do you know Miscou Point 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you go around Point Miscou?—A. I have been to anchor 
there, not fishing. 

Q. Then you have been inside of Point Miscou at anchor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were there other vessels there too ?—A. There might be. 

(). Have you séen other vessels there?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever tried to fish in that bay 7—A. No. 

Q. Have you heard of other vessels fishing there ?—A. I have heard 
of other vessels fishing there. 

Q. You never tried to fish yourself ?—A. No, I have never fished in 
a vessel that fished up in the bay, but I have been in vessels that fished 
off Miscou light. 

Q. Did they make good catches 7—A. No, nothing extra. 

Q. How many did you catch off there?—A. Well, we might catch a 
dozen barrels or so. 

Q. Did you ever fish on the Cape Breton shore ?—A. Ihave been down 
to Margaree once. 

Q. In the fall ?—A. Yes. 7 

. Is that known to be a good fishing-ground among the Ameri- 
cans ?—A. I have heard talk that it used to be. 

Q. Did you fish there 7—A. I have been there once. 

Q. Did you catch any fish ?—A. Nothing worth speaking of. 

(. There were other vessels there; what year was that ?—A. About 
1868. 

Q. What time of the year ?—A. In the fall. 

Q. That was after the mackerel-fishing in the bay was done 7—. No, 
it’was about the first of the month, the first of October. 

Q. Is that the season when they generally go to Margaree 7—A, Yes, 
I have never been there but once. 

Q. The time you went did they go ?—A. There was a dozen sail when 
I called there. | : 

Q. How long did you stay to see whether there were fish there or 
not 7—A. One day. 

Q. You can’t tell whether the others caught them or not ?—A. No. 

Q. Have you ever been to Seven Islands ?—A. No. 

@. Nor up the shores of thé river St. Lawrence 7—A. No. 

Q. Nor around Bonaventure?—A. No, I have never been around 


* Bonaventure, but I have been once at anchor at Port Daniel. 


Q. Have you heard of this being a good fishing-ground 7?—A. No; I 
have heard it mentioned that fish were caught there, but never that it 
was a good fishing-ground. 

@. You don’t know what quantities were caught, of course ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever ask whether it was good or not ?—A. No. 

Q. You never were a master of a vessel during those years you were 
in ?—A. No; 1 was a mere hand. : 

Q. You caught 95 barrels one year, 150 another, 180 a third, and 240 
another year. Were these very small catches ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you never caught any within three miles?—A. I don’t know 
but we might catch a few; never anything worth speaking of. 

Q. And you didn’t try ?—A. We did try once or twice. 

Q. Had you a license to fish when you were there ?—A. I could not 
exactly tell you. 

Q. But you ran in to try ?—A. We were in making lee. 

Q. You never tried to keep outside ?—A. I could not tell you; I have 


2334 AWARD OF THE FISHERY. COMMISSION. 


seen some vessels keep outside. I have seen them making lee and get- 
ting under way and running out. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 


Q. You have been seven years cod-fishing?—A. Yes, about seven 
years. 

Q. Part of these at Grand Bank ?—A. Yes, all. 

Q. You commenced in °71, I think ?—A. Yes, about that. 

Q. Can you tell me what vessel you were in that year?—A. I have 
been in the Midnight. 

Q. How many trips ?—A. Three trips; that is, on the Grand Banks. 

Q. Do you recollect the quantity of fish you took each trip ?—A. Well, 
I could not exactly say. 

Q. Did you use salt or fresh bait ?—A. Salt. 

Q. What bait did you first take?—A. Slivers the first trip. We got 
squid on the bank the second trip, and then used salt bait the last trip. 

Q. Did you take any salt bait for the second trip ?—A. Yes, sir. - 

Q. You didn’t use it?—A. No. ‘ 

Q. What quantity did you take each trip ?—A. Ten or fifteen barrels 
each trip. 

Q. What vessel were you in the second trip ?—A. I have been in the 
Midnight two years. 

Q. How many trips did you make that year ?—A. Two. 

Q. What quantity did you take; do you remember ?—A. I could not 
recollect. 

Q. Did you use salt bait or fresh ?—A. We used salt bait. 

Q. Altogether, for the two trips?—A. No; we got some fresh bait on 
the Bank—some squid one trip; we caught them on the Bank. 

Q. On the first trip you used altogether salt bait ?—A. Yes. : 

Q. The third year, what vessel were you in?—A. I was in the Noon- 
day. 

Q. Do you remember how many trips you nade ?~-A. I was mistaken; 
in the third year I was in the Enola C. 

Q. Do you remember how many trips ?—A. I was only in her one 
trip; I was fresh fishing in the spring, and then went for salt fish. 

Q. Fresh fishing on the American coast?—A. No; on the Grand 
Banks. We made three trips. We went in March; about the first of 
March. 

Q. Do I understand that you went about the first of March and 
made three trips for fresh fish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you made one trip for salt fish; do you recollect the quan- 
tity of fish you took?—A. I could not say; something over 140,000 
“pounds. 

Q. That is salt fish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You don’t recollect the quantity of fresh fish you took ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you use salt bait that season?—A. Yes; we did catch some 
fresh bait on the Bank part of the trip. 

Q. That is, on the salt-fishing trip you used partly salt bait and 
partly fresh ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The fourth year, what vessel were you in?—A. The Noonday. 

Q. How many trips did you make that year ?—A. Two trips. 

Q. Do you remember the quantity you took?—A. We took 170,000 
pounds the first trip. 

Q. That would be in ’74 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How much did you take the second trip ?—A. We had 165,000. 

Q. What bait did you use ?—A. Fresh bait caught on the Banks. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2335 


Q. Now the fifth year, what vessel were you in?—A. The Noonday. 

Q. How many trips did you make ?—A. I made one salt trip. 

Q. How much fish did you catch ?—A. We caught 110,000. 

Q. How many trips did you make for fresh fish ?—A. We made three 
trips for fresh fish. 

Q. Where did you get your bait that year?—A. In Newfoundland. 

Q. That is the first year you went to Newfoundland, is it?—A. No; 
we were in the year before that. 

Q. You stated before that you got bait on the Banks, now you say 
you got itin Newfoundland. Which is correct?—A. We got our bait 
in Newfoundland the fifth year. 

Q. That is 1875 ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that the first year you got it in there #—A. Yes. 

Q. Just now you said you had been into Newfoundland for bait in 1874? 
Then you have only been in three years ?—A. And this year. 

Q. That is ’75, °76, and ’77—only three years 1A. Didn’t I tell you 
I was in the first trip in the Noonday. 

Q. Did you go into Newfoundland for fresh bait in 1874 for the first 
time, or was it in 1875 7—A. I told youn—— 

Q. Just answer simply ?—A. 1874. d 

Q. Then you were incorrect just now when you said you caught it 
that year on the Banks ?—A. Well, I caught part of it. The first trip 
we went into Newfoundland, and the second trip got it on the Banks. 

Q. You went into Newfoundland in the spring for your first bait ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. To Fortune Bay. ¢ 

Q. Did you take a seine and catch the bait yourself ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you employ people there to catch it for you 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many barrels of bait did you get 7—A. Somewhere about 49 
barrels. 

Q. And you gave them $25 or thereabouts ?—A. Not that year; it was 
$50 that year. 

Q. Well, now, in 1875 you say you got 110,090 pounds of fish. What 
vessel were you in in 1876?—A. The Noonday. 

Q. How many trips?—A. One trip. 

Q. How many fish did you take?—A. 80,000—78,000. 

Q. Had you made any trips for fresh fish in the spring ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. Three or four—four., 

Q. Where did you get bait for the fresh fish ?—A. We got it down the 
* shore here; some in Prospect. 

Bin You caught the fresh bait yourselves?—A. No; we bought it 
there. 

Q. Did you employ people to catch it for you ?—A. They came along- 
side with it, and we bought it from them. 

Q. What was it ?—A. Herring. 

Q. The trip you made for salt fish, where did you get bait ?—~A. Some 
on the Cape Breton shore. We got ‘the first bait on the Cape Breton 
shore, and the next in St. John’s. 

Q. For the first three or four trips you went for fresh fish, and then 
you went for a trip for salted fish ?—A. Yes. 

Dae For the first bait for the salt fish you went to Cape Breton 1—A. 
es 

Q. And the second bait to St. John’s ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. What time did you go into St. John’s ?—A. We went there about 
the last of October. 

Q. What bait did you get then ?—A. Squid. 


2336 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Was that fresh squid 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you went to the Banks and completed your trip 7—A.. Well, 
part of a trip; we didn’t get much of a trip at that. 

Q. You completed your 78,000 pounds ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And returned home ?—A. Yes. 


Q. What time did you get home ?—A. I could not exactly say. 

Q. Now, this year, what vessel were you in ?7—A. The Noonday again. 

Q. What were you doing this year ?—A. Salt-fishing. 

Q. All the year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many trips have you made ?—A. I am on the second now. 

Q. Returning home ?—A. No. 

Q. Are you going out now eRe I am going to the Banks. I have 
made one trip. 


Q. How much did you take ?—A. Off and on about 100,000: 

Q. Where did you get bait for that trip?—A. At Fortune Bay. 

Q. What time of the year?—A. About the 10th of May, the first bait. 

Q. You live at Gloucester.—A. Yes. 

Q. What time did you leave Gloucester ?—A. We left on the 2d day 
of March. 

Q. Where did you go in the interim between that and the 10th of 
May ?—A. Fishing on the Banks, on Grand Bank. 

Q. What bait did you use?—A. We took a little bait from home— 
enough to start with. I was fishing halibut, salt halibut. 

Q. With what bait were you fishing eee We caught bait on the 
ground. 

Q. You went from home without any bait at all?—A. We took enough 
to start with. 

Q. What did you take?—A. About two or three thousand herring— 
three thousand. 

Q. They were frozen herring 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Wl ee did you get them ?—A. They came from down East. 

Q. Did you go directly from that into Fortune Bay for fresh bait ?— 
A. I fished on the Banks near two months. 

Q. Did you go from that, after the 10th of May, to Fortune Bay for 
fresh bait?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you catch any bait in Fortune Bay ?7—A. No. 

_ Q. Had you a herring seine on board 7?—A. No. 

Q. Did you see many of your countrymen in there looking for bait ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. A great many of them ?—A. A good many. 

Q. Did they catch bait themselves, some of them ?—A. No, they never 
catch bait. They have it seined there. 

Q. Were you on board their vessels?—A. Yes, I was. 

Q. Are you not aware that many of them take down large herring 
seines and get bait themselves ?—A. I never heard it. 

Q. You never heard of their having barred any of the coves there ?— 
A. No. 

Q. During the last spring, in Fortune Bay, have they not barred her- 
rings in the coves 7—A. O, yes; they have them barred as long as six 
weeks waiting for the Americans to come for them; that is the natives. 
Iam speaking of. 

Q. Have not the American cod-fishers, some of them, taken large 
herring-seines with them and used them for taking herring and barring: 
the coves ?—A. No; I haven’t heard of it. 

Q. You are now going out on your second trip 7—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2337 


Q. Now, you have given us an aveount of your voyages, in 1874, 1875, 
1876, and 1877; those are the years you used fresh bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You don’t recollect your voyages for 1871, 1872, and 1873; those 
were the years you used salt bait?—A. Those years we used salt bait. 

Q. You alleged just now that during the years you used salt bait 
your voyages were superior to those made when you used fresh bait ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Well, you don’t remember your catches when you used salt bait ?— 
A. I don’t remember the quantity of fish we took home, because I was 

‘ahand. Probably I might have known if I had inquired into it. 

Q. How is it you pledge your oath that during the years you used 
salt bait you took more fish than when you used fresh bait, when you 
dowt remember what quantity of fish you,took with the salt bait ?—A. 
Well, I might have known nearly, but I could not tell exactly ~hat fish 
we took to a pound or so. 

Q. You have told me distinctly that you did not remember the quan- 
tities you took in 1871, 1872, and 1873?—A. No, I could not say ex- 
aetly. 

Q. You can’t remember ?—A. No. I know I got a good deal more 
money. 

Q. If you can’t remember the quantity of fish you took how can you 
say you took more than in the four succeeding years?—A. Well, I can 
tell, because the last fwo years I have been skipper myself, and the 
other two I have been with a man that had been in this vessel before I 
took her. I knew the number of fish because he and I worked together, 
and I found out what number. These other years I never asked We 
skippers probably the number of fish we landed. 

Q. Well, you still affirm upon oath that you took larger quantities of 
fish with salt bait then with fresh ?—-A. Well, not with salt bait, but 
that and’ what we caught on the Banks. 

Q. You stated now that you took a larger quantity with salt bait than 
with fresh ?—A. Well, I didn’t state that, but we catch bait on the 
Banks as well as using salt bait. I told you we were catching part on 
the Banks. 

Q. Then you say you caught a larger quantity when you didn’t go into 
the coast of Newfoundland 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You are sure as to that now 7—A, Yes. 

Q. You can’t tell the Commission what quantity you took during 
those years? You can’t remember ?—A, Well, I could not tell you the 
certain number. 

Q. Then how can you tell that the number was larger or smaller ?— 
A. Because I made more money. 

Q. Do you remember the amount of money you made in 1871?—A. 
Well, I could tell you, [ suppose. 

Q. Will you tell us?—A. I might figure it up. 

Q. Will you tell us what money you made in 1871? Can you recol- 
lect ?—A. I could not exactly tell you. 

Q, In 1872? If you can’t, answer yes or no.—A. What do you mean ? 
Salt fish ? 

pa ae money did you make in 1872?—A. I made about $500 I 
thin : 

Q. That is fresh and salt?—A. Yes. 

Q. For the season ?—A. Yes. 

Q. All the other hands made the same ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember what you made in 1873?—A. No; I could not 
exactly tell you. 


147 F 


2338 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Do you remember what you made in 1874?—A. No. 
Q. In 1875 ?—A. I can’t exaetly tell you what I made. 
Q. In 1876?—A. I didn’t keep any run of it like that. 
Q. You can’t tell about 1876?—A. No; I didn’t keep any run of it. 


Q. I suppose you can’t say as to this year because it is not ended - 


yet?—A. Probably if I figured it up I could tell you what I made. 

Q. Now, you say you have been four years into Newfoundland for 
bait. During the last two years you have been master and during the 
first two years you were a hand on board ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is all?—A. Yes; that is all into St. John’s. 

Q. Were you into any other port—Long Harbor?—A. No; I was in 
Cape Breton. 

Q. You were in St. John’s once, that is, on the Newfoundland coast, in 
1876?—A. Yes. 

Q. This year you have been in four times. Where have you been ?7— 
A. I have been to Long Harbor, and I have been to Fortune Bay twice, 
and I have been to Bay Bulls once, and St. John’s once. Well, I have 
been in several places up and down the shore looking for bait, but did 
not get any. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Where did you usually fish on the Grand Banks ?—A. Well, I 
could not tell you the certain spot, because we fished all over it pretty 
much. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 
Q. Can’t you tell the latitude and longitude of the place you fished ? 
—A. We did not fish in any one certain spot. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Is it not a long way to go from the Bank to Fortune Bay? Are 
there not places along here (pointing to the coast from Cape Francis to 
Cape Race) where you can get bait ?—A. We might not find any bait 
there. We go all over looking for it. 

By Mr. Whiteway: 

Q. You go to Fortune Bay in the spring before you go to the Bank 
at all?—A. No. 

Q. Do you mean to say you go into Fortune Bay from the Banks and 
then go out again ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, when you go into Fortune Bay is it on the Grand Banks you 
are fishing or to the southward ?—A. It is on the Grand Bank. 

Q. Are you on the Grand Banks or on St. Peter’s and Green Banks 
when you go to Fortune Bay for bait 1—A. We are on the Grand Bank. 

Q. Always ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you say you can’t tell upon wht part of the Grand Banks 
you fished ?—A. No; you probably set trawls in the evening, and if 
you find no fish you are under sail next morning. You are under sail 
nearly every day. We were under sail nearly every day last trip. We 
fish in 44 latitude one day, and next time we set trawls it will be in 444, 
next time in 45. 

Q. You fish at different places ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you keep a log-book ?—-A. Yes. 

Q. On board ship ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you that here now ?—A. No. 

Q. Could you tell the date you left fishing at the Grand Banks to go 
into Saint John’s for bait this year ?—A. I could not exactly say. 


tape 


ee ee ee.) 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2339 


Q. Can’t you remember ?—A. I don’t know if I could exactly tell you 
now. 

Q. Do you remember the date you got back after being in there ?7—A. 
We got back the 24th of last month. 

Q. Well, now, you left Saint John’s the 24th September ?—A. We got 
back the 24th. ; 

Q. Well, now, do you remember what time you left Saint John’s ?—A. 
I left on the 22d September. 

Q. How long were you in Saint John’s?—A. Well, I have been—— 

Q. On that occasion I mean. How long had you been there ?—A. I 
had been there two days. 

Q. Well, how long had you been coming from the Banks into Saint 
John’s ?—A. About 36 hours. 

Q. That altogether makes five anda half days. Then it takes you five 
and a half days?—A. Yes; and then I have been three weeks looking 
for bait. 

Q. But I am speaking of this occasion ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. You were about five and a half days ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You are clear upon that point?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, how came you to swear just now that the shortest time you 
were in there was seven days?—A. Well, I didn’t say. I said 1 have 
been over three weeks. 

Q. You said you were thirty-six hours coming in from the Banks ?—A. 
I said I was thirty-six hours coming in from the Banks. I didn’t go 
directly to Saint John’s then. But then when I got my bait, when I 
left I got it at Saint John’s; it was salt bait. I was looking for fresh 
bait and could not get it. We gave up hopes of getting fresh bait, and 
then went to Saint John’s and got salt bait. 

Q. Then you were not correct when you said you were thirty-six 
hours ?—A. Well, you didn’t ask me. You asked me in a different way. 
You asked me how long I was coming in from the Banks, and I told you. 
But I was longer than that looking for bait, because I didn’t go directly 
to Saint John’s when I came looking for bait. When I gave up every 
other place, I came to Saint John’s. 

Q. You were thirty-six hours going to St. John’s, and you were two 
days in St. John’s ?—A. I was not at that time. 

Q. I was only speaking of one voyage and kept you to one particular 
trip. You told me you were clear it took five and a half days for the 
trip.—A. I didn’t say such a word, that it took me five and a half on 
this trip. 

Q. Do I understand you now that you were not correct in making the 
statement that it took thirty-six hours to go into St. John’s and that 
you remained in St. John’s two days and took two days to go out 
again 7—A. I left the bank and run for St. John’s and I have been in 
there and got through my business before I left St. John’s, and went 
all round the coast looking for fresh bait. 

Q. What business had you in St. John’s ?—A. We wanted to find out 
where we could get bait. 

Q. Had you any other business?—A. Not anything large. 

Q. How long did you remain in St. John’s to find out where you could 
get bait?—-A. We came in on Saturday evening about dark and lay 
there until Monday morning. 

Q. Then where did you go to?—A. To a place called Portugal Cove. 
_ Q. When do you go there ?—A. We were there a night or so. We 
got there some time about four o’clock and were there until next morning. 


2340 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


1g! Seri, sean 


Q. You didn’t get bait there 7—A. No. 

Q. Where then did you go?—A. Up the shore. 

Q. To what place ?—A. Broad Cove. 

Q. Did you get bait there ?—A. No. 

Q. How long did you remain ?—A. We went there in the morning 
and were away next evening. 

Q. Where then ?—A. To the northward, to Bonavista. 

Q. Did you get bait there ?—A. No. 

Q. How long did you remain there ?—A. Two days. 

Q. Where did you go from there ?—A. To Heart’s Content. 

Q. Did you get bait there?—-A. No; we staid there three days. 

Q. Where did you go then ?—A. We worked back to St. John’s. We 
worked on shore down along, trying different places. We tried the 
coves inside and along shore. 

Q. When did you get back to St. John’s ?—-A. The day of the week ? 
I could not exactly tell you. 

Q. How long did you remain there then ?—A. Two days. 

Q. Did you get fresh bait there ?—A. No; we took salt bait. 

Q. What detained you that long getting salt bait?—A. Well, the 
first evening we were in there they caught a few squid, a very few, and 
we remained there until next morning to see whether they would catch, 
thinking probably they might strike in and we could get some. Next 
morning they didn’t get any, so we took salt squid, and ae wind was 
kind of ahead, so we didn’t go out until next day. 

Q. How long did it take you around all this coasting voyage ?—A. It 
was about three weeks from the time we left until we got back. 

Q. Can you tell me when you left the Banks ?—A. No. 

Q. Now, don’t you know a great number of harbors and places where 
you could get bait between St. John’s and Portugal Cove?—A. There 
have been vessels in every harbor from St. Peter’s to St. John’s and 
didn’t get any. 

_ Q. American vessels have been in every harbor from St. Peter’s to 
St. John’s and haven’t got any bait?—A. Not any fresh bait. They 
were looking for fresh bait. I don’t know but some of them might have 
got it. 

Q. What time during this year did those vessels go into all those 
harbors between St. Peter’s and St. John’s and get no bait?—A. From 
the middle of last month. 

Q. From the middle of September to the first of this month—during 
fifteen days ?—A. Well, some there might be from the first of the month ; 
there might be some there. 

Q. That is American vessels in all the ports between St. Peter’s and 
St. John’s and got no bait? Were you in any of those ports yourself?— 
A. No; I have been there and to the northward of St. John’s. 

Q. How do you know,they were there?—A. I have seen vessels go- 
ing along there. 

Q. How many have you seen ?—A. Five or six. 

Q. Can you name one?—A. There was one captain said he had been 
up and down all along the shore, from St. Peter’s up and down, and 
didn’t get any fresh bait. 

Q. Where did you fall in with him ?—A. In St. John’s. 

Q. Was that the first time or the last 7—A. The last time. 

Q. Did he take fresh bait or salt?—A. I was not in his company all 
the time. I could not correctly tell you whether he got salt or fresh 
bait. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2341 


Q. Now, you_have detailed your expedition in for bait this year; you 
were in also last year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Can you tell me the time you left the fishing ground last year to 
go in for bait ?—A. No; I can tell you the time I was gone. 

Q. Can you tell me the port to which you went 7—A. St. John’s. 

Q. Direct from the Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You can’t tell the time you left the Banks 7—A. No. 

Q. How long did it take you to go in?—A. About 38 hours, I sup- 
pose. 

Q. Did you get bait in St. John’s?—A. Yes. 

Q. Fresh ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you return immediately to the fishing ground ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long were you in St. John’s ?—A. I was there five days. 

Q. You remained in St. John’s five days on that occasion last year ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Were you detained by no other cause than the procuring of bait ?— 
A. That is all. 

Q. Was there no bait there to be had ?—A. There was, but they could 
not catch enough at once, and we had to wait for the morning and even- 
ing catch, and buy what they would bring aboard. 

Q. Did’ you go in the harbor or remain in Freshwater Bay ?—A. The 
vessel remained in Freshwater Bay. 

Q. Why did she remain there ya. That is where they catch the 
bait. 

Q. Youdid not go into St. John’s; was it not to avoid paying the light- 
dues ?—A. No; it was not. 

Q. State whether it was that or not.—A. No; I don’t know if it was 
that; it was not that. 

Q. Did you pay light-dues ?—A. No. 

Q. How long did it take you to get out to the fishing grounds at the 


Banks ?—A. I could not say. 


Q. Cannot you remember how long—38 hours ?—A. It took nine days 
from the day we left to when we got back. 

Q. Did you make any other trip to Newfoundland for bait last year ?— 
= Not from the Banks. We took bait from Cape Breton when going 
there, 

Q. The only two voyages you made in for bait since you have been 
master are the one just referred to, when you went round to Bonavista 
and got salt bait, and one in 1876, when you anchored in Fresh- 
eg Bay, outside of St. John’s, and got bait and came out again 7?—A. 

es 

Q. Those were the only two trips you went in for fresh bait, except- 
ing in Fortune Bay ?—A. That is all. 

Q. Fresh bait, I believe, is very superior to salt bait for taking fish ?— 
A. If it was on the Bank, it is; but when you have to spend half your 
time looking for it, it is not. 

Q. Then, if you had plenty of fresh bait you would consider it far su- 
perior to salt bait for catching fish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ever get any ice in St. John’s ?—A. No. 

Q. Where did you get your ice ?—A. Which time ? 

Q. At any time.—A. We got ice in St. John’s the last trip. 

Q. You got ice in St. John’s last year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Had you no other business in St. John’s besides that of getting 
bait ?—A. No other business. 

Q. Did not your men jig bait themselves ?—A. No. 


2342 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Have you ever jigged bait there either when captain or hand?—A, 
I never jigged any bait in St. John’s. 

Q. Did any of your crew ?—A. No; nor any of my crew. 

Q. Have any of your crew jigged ’ squid in any other port than St. 
John’s ?—A. No; not that I know of. While they were with me I never 
saw them jig for ‘squid. 

Q. You always employed others to get bait ?—-A. They come along- 
side, and we buy bait from them. 

Q. You employ them to catch bait for you ?—A. They come alongside 
and they catch it. 

Q. Do they come alongside with squid to sell, or do they come and 
ask what quantity of bait you want, and you tell them and they go and 
catch it?—A. They come alongside with bait. They never come near 
except with bait. 

Q. They never come to ask whether you want bait or not ?7—A. No. 

Q. How often has that occurred that they have come alongside with 
bait?—A. That is with squid. 

Q. How often has it occurred that they have come alongside with 
squid ?—A. All the times I have ever been there for bait, they have come 
alongside, and have had the bait—squid—in their boats. 

Q. You got salt bait that year ?—A. Salt squid. 

Q. Last year you got fresh squid ?—A. Fresh bait. 

Q. And you were five days in St. John’s before you got it ?—A. Yes; 
waiting till they caught it. 

Q. Do you mean to say that they did not come on board to know what 
quantity of bait you wanted ?—A. They came on board the first morn- 
ing I was there and had bait in their boats. 

Q. And then you told them what quantity of fish you wanted, and 
they went and caught it?—A. They had bait to sell and I bought ‘what 
they had. 

Q. Then you told them what quantity you wanted, and they went and 
caught it?—A. Yes. At last they had more than I wanted. 

Q. Bait was very abundant ?—A. I did not want all the bait they had 
caught, the last morning I was there. 

Q. That is the only time you got fresh squid from the people there 7 
A. Yes; the last time last year. 

Q. You gotit the year before?—A. No. 

Q. That was the only time you got fresh squid ?—A. I got no fresh 
squid that trip, but on the first trip. 

Q. I thought you were in for bait only once that year?—A. I told you 
I was in St. John’s four times this year. 

Q. You told me you were in Fortune Bay.—A. Twice in Fortune Bay 
and twice on the coast. 

Q. You have been more than once in St. John’s this year ?—A. Once 
in what I call St. John’s. 

Q. Have you been at any other time on the coast besides at Fortune 
Bay ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. In Bay of Bulls. 

Q. ae were you in Bay of Bulls?—A. I went im there the last day 
of July 
‘ Q. When did you leave the Banks to go there ?—A. I was right from 

ome. 

Q. You went from home to the Bay of Bulls?—A. Yes. 

Q. And got bait there, in how long a time?—A. They caught it the 
same day we went in there. 

Q. And you proceeded at once to the Banks 7—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2343 


Q. How long was it before you got on the fishing grounds ?—A. About 
two days. 

Q. You got the bait the first day you went in ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you were only three days altogether in getting bait and pro- 
ceeding to the Banks ?—A. Yes; I had come from home then. 

Q. How do you reconcile that with the statement you made that the 
shortest time in which you got bait was nine days ?—A. There is a dif- 
ference. I was asked the time it took from leaving the Banks to get 
back. I did not go there from the Banks. 

Q. You draw a distinction between leaving home and going to New- 
foundland to get bait and going from the Banks there for bait?—A. I 
was asked what time was taken between leaving the Banks to get bait 
and getting back again. I don’t know but that I was three weeks from 
the time I left home till I got there. 

Q. In 1875 you were a hand. Do you recollect what time you left the 
Banks to go into the coast for bait ?—A. No; I do not. 

Q. Do you remember how often you went in ?7—A. Once, I think. 

Q. Do you recollect to what place you went?—A. To Fortune Bay. 

Q. That was the only part of the coast to which you went for bait in 
1875, and you went there but once?—A. That is all. 

Q. In 1874, how often were you on the coast of Newfoundland for 
bait ?—A. Once, I think. 

Q. Those were the two years you were a hand?—A, Yes, 

Q. How was it you said you were 10 or 12 times into that coast for 
bait before you were master, and six times since you were master 7—A. 
I did not mean in Newfoundland getting bait. I was asked how often 
I took fresh bait. ; 

Q. It is, then, not correct as you have stated, that you were into New- 
foundland for bait ten or twelve times before you were master. Did you 
state that or not ?—A. I don’t think I did—that I went into Newfound- 
land that number of times for bait. 

Q. As a matter of fact, you were there once in 1874, once in 1875, once 
in 1876, and once this year. Is that correct?—A. I have been twice 
this 6. ihe: once in 1876. 

en you were there once in 1874, once in 1875, once in 1876, and 
wee this year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That makes five times you went on the coast of Newfoundland for 
bait?—A. Five times altogether. I have been four times this year, 
twice for squid and twice for herring. 

Q. You were there once in 1874, once in 1875, once in 1876, and four 
times in 1877. Is that a fact?—A. That is the fact. 

Q. Any other statement you may have made in regard to the times 
you have been in for bait is incorrect?—A. I was asked how often I 
had been in for fresh buit. 

Q. You were asked how often you had been into Newfoundland for 
fresh bait?—A. I did not understand that it was only Newfoundland. 

Q. You were there once in 1874, once in 1875, once in 1876, and four 
times in 1877, That i is a correct statement ?—A. Yes; that is a correct 
statement. 

Q. Any other statement you made as to the number of times ap 3 
went into Newfoundland for bait is incorrect ?—A. Yes. 


2344 AWARD OF THF FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. 31. 


STEPHEN J. MARTIN recalled on behalf of the Government of the 
United States. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Question. 1 have learned since you were on the stand, what I did not 
tg before, that you have been engaged in halibut fishing ?— Answer. 
Yes. 

Q. During the time you were in the Bloomer, were you halibut fish- 
ing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you fish ?—A. Part of the time at the George’s, but 
the biggest part of the time, seven vears out of the ten or eleven years, 
by ara in different parts of the Bay of Fundy, from Yarmouth to Seal 

sland. 

Q. That includes all the region about, I suppose. You have heard 
something about Cape Sable Island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. During time you were fishing in that region, were you fishing deep 
sea or inshore ?—A. In deep water; never within fifteen miles of the 
shore. Sometimes we sighted Yarmouth light or Seal Island light. 

Q. Did you ever see any other persons fishing as close inshore as three 
miles?—A. We were not near enough to see. 

Q. Did you goin at all?—A. Twice; once into Bryer Island after 
herring, and once into Yarmouth after alewives. 

Q. When you were at Bryer Island, did you find any other fishermen 
there ?—A. Nobody but ourselves. 

Q. Did you speak with any, either going or coming ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you get your bait at home ?—A. We went to Bryer Island to 
try and get some bait, but did not get any. We got 400 or 500 herrings 
and came right away. 

Q. Did you take bait from home?—A. Always. 

Q. Is it thé practice among the American fishermen to procure the 
bait from home?—A. Yes; when going only that short distance, they 
always take their bait from home. 

Q. As far as your information extends, you know nothing of atty hali- 
but which is not taken outside in deep water ?—A. No. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 

Q. What was the last year you fished ?—A. 1861. 

Q. Where did you fish ?—A. We caught one trip about 15 miles west 
of Yarmouth light. We could see the light on a clear night. 

‘- meal From Yarmouth and to the west?—A. Yes; and towards Seal 
d. 

Q. Yarmouth was farthest you went west on that coast ?—A. Yes; 
unless we went up to Bryer Island. 

Q. You fished altogether west of Yarmouth ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You only fished at Yarmouth and west of Yarmouth ?—A. Some- 
times we would go as far off as Seal Island and Brown’s Bank. We have 
been eastward on that coast. ; 

Q. You never tried inshore fishing ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever land at Sable Island ?—A. Never in my life. 

Q. You never fished there in sixteen years ?—A. No. 

Q. You never fished for halibut lately ?—A. Not since 1861. 

Q. You stated, when you were here before, that halibut was a deep-sea 
fish ?—A. We sometimes fished in 75 or 80 fathoms. 

Q. You did not make anything out of halibut fishing?—A. No. 


ah. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION: 2345 


Q. Lately there has been a good deal of money made out of halibut 
fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?—A. Not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 
Q. Do you know anything about halibut fishing in the gulf?—A. No. 

Q. You never heard of it ?—A. No. 

Q. Not off Anticosti?—A. Not to my knowledge. I have heard tell 
of it. 

Q. You never heard of any halibut fishing except as deep-sea fishing ?— 
A. I have heard of a few halibut being caught down at Miquelon and 
St. Pierre. 

Q. Sixteen years ago 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Since that you have heard nothing about it?—A. No; I never 
paid much attention to it. I might have heard about it, but never gave 
it any attention. 

Q. Do you know that it had lately been discovered that it was a shore- 
fishery ?—A. No. 

Q. You never fished any since 1860 ?—A. No. 


No. 33. 


Ezra TURNER, of Isle of Haut, Deer Isle, State of Maine, fisherman, 
ealled on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and 
examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. You live on the south part of Dede Isle, on Penobscot Bay, 
and in the State of Maine ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. And the name of your place of residence is Isle of Haut?—A. Yes. 

Q. How far is that from Mount Desert?—A. Twenty miles. 

Q. How old are you?—A. I was 64, 12th of last March. 

Q. When were you first in the Gulf of Saint Laren 7—A. About 
- 1829. 

Q. What for?—A. I was for codfish that trip. 

Q. When were you first in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence after mack- 
erel?—A. In 1831. 

Q. How many years have you been fishing in the Gulf of Saint Law- 
rence for mackerel ?—A. I have been from that time till 1865. 

Q. Thirty-five years?—A. Yes. 

Q. When were you first skipper 7—A. In 1831. 

Q. Of what schooner 7?—A. The Porpoise. 

Q. You were pretty young when you were first skipper?—A. There 
were younger skippers than I was. 

Q. How old were you?—A,. About nineteen. 

Q. How many years were you in the Porpoise?—A. I was in her 17 
years. 

Q. In succession ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where was she from ?—A. She belonged to the town of Deer Isle, 
when Isle of Haute and Deer Isle were one. 

Q. She belonged to the place where you live ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did she pack out ?—A. The first three years I fitted and 
packed at Isle of Haute, and the next fourteen years I fitted and packed 
in Gloucester. 

Q. State to the Commission what was your principal fishing-ground 
for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.—A. I have been all over it, 
but the principal ground is Banks Bradley and Orphan and the Magda- 
len Islands. Late in the fall down at Margaree there is @onsiderable 
hovering about there among the fleet. 


2346 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Have you caught mackerel within three miles of the shore any- 
where, and, if so, name all the places, and tell the Commission all you 
know about the extent of the fishing at those places ?—A. I got 90 bar- 
rels one day. I did not judge myself anything more than three miles 
out, and I don’t think I was. I think I was within three miles of the 
land; when we hove to after we had done fishing, we were six or seven 
miles off. The wind was right off land. 

@. Where was that ?—A. At Margaree. Aside of tbat, I don’t recol- 
lect getting a dozen barrels of mackerel at any place inshore round the 
whole bay. 

Q. In one day, do you mean, or altogether ?—A. In any onetime. I 
might have picked up fifty barrels, aside of these wash-barrels, inside 
of the line all round the bay. 

Q. So far as you have observed fishing within three miles of the shore, 
where is the most of it done in the gulf?—A. At Margaree Island, the 
most I have seen done. It is the only place there is any fish inshore 
that I know of. , 

Q. Why is that? Explain.—A. When the fish come down out of the 
bay in the fall we calculate that those which go through the Gut of Canso 
strike Margaree, unless the wind blows from the south and then they go 
round Cape North. They strike down to Margaree. Sometimes we can 
get them half way across to East Point, and afterwards two-thirds of the 
way from there towards Margaree, and if there is a heavy north wind it 
drives them near the shore. I never saw them caught inside of one 
mile or two miles, for the land there is very high, and one milé does not 
look much distance where the land is so high. 

Q. When you speak of fishing off Margaree do you know if there is 
any fishing between the island and mainland there ?—A. I never saw a 
mackerel caught there, but I don’t know that it has not been done. 

Q. When you measure distances do you measure them from the main- 
land or the island ?—A. From the island. 

Q. Then you mean inshore of the island?—A. Yes. I consider the 
island land. 

Q. Have you ever fished off Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. I have 
fished all round the east side wherever anybody fished. 

Q. Did you fish within taree miles of the shore there 7—A. No. Itis 
a rare thing that ever you get mackerel within the three miles. When 
they come within three miles they rise in schools, and we never calcu- 
late to do much out of them, but from four to six or seven miles off is 
the common fishing ground there. 

Q. Did you ever go to Seven Islands in the gulf?—A. Yes, I have 
been there three times. I never got 20 barrels of mackerel. 

Q. How near inshore did you try there?—A. I tried close in there 
and I did not find any. They used to catch them broad off and then 
the story was that some vessels caught them close in. Some of the Eng- 
lish boats told me they had done well close in to St. Anne. 

Q. St. Anne is on the other side of the river ?—A. It is on the south 
side, right across. 

Q. Did you ever try seining for mackerel in Bay St. Lawrence ?—A. 
Yes. I took a seine once and went up to Seven Islands, and from there 
down through the Straits to Anticosti, down by Mingan, up through 
the inside of Mecatina, to St. Augustine and Dog Island, and from there 
to Old Fort. I was ordered to go and stop there. 

Q. whee Old Fort ?—A. It is on the Labrador coast. 

Q. What'Success had you in seining 7—A. [never gotascale. I went 
from there to Five Islands, Newfoundland, Bonne Bay, and over to the 


——— 


Se ee ee ee 


A, ea SP 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2347 


Magdalen Islands, and got there the first of September, and landed my 
seines and boats without one scale. 

Q. What year was that ?—A. I cannot tell that. It was when I was 
in the Blondel. 

Q. Was it 10, 15, or 20 years ago ?—A. It was 15 years ago. 

Q. That season after first September did you try catching mackerel 
in the usual way, with hook and line?—A. Yes; all I got. 

Q. How many did you get ?—A. 27®barrels. 

Q. Where ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands and broad off New London 
and about 30 or 40 barrels southeast of East Point. 

Q. What was the last year you fished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?— 
A. I think it was 1865, 

Q. You came from home here on a request by letter or telegram. Did 
you bring any books or memoranda with you?—A. No. 

Q. You have not any means of fixing dates?—A. No. I did not 
know for what I was wanted, or what you were going to do with me. 

Q. Do you recollect being in the Gulf of St. Lawrence once when there 
was a cutter there, and the limits within which you were to fish were 
pointed out ?—A. I do, well. 

Q. Tell me what the cutter was ?—A. I cannot tell her name, because 
there was none on her, but I heard the name of her. The captain was 
Captain Daly. 

Q. Where did she come from ?—A. From Halifax. He sent for me 
to come on board. 

Q. I should like to fix the time as nearly as possible. You hardly 
remember the year?—A. I cannof; I was in Highland Lass that year, 
I am pretty sure. 

Q. Do you remember whether it was before the Reciprocity Treaty I 
A. It must have been. 

Q. The Reciprocity Treaty began in 1854; then it must have been 
twenty-odd years ago?—A. Yes 

Q. Describe what sort of a cutter it was, where it came from, where 
you saw it, and tell the whole story.—A. He gave a general invitation 
to all American skippers to come on board and see where their limits 
to fish were. There were 30 or 40 sail of vessels round there, but they 
all cleared out, except one or two, as soon as he came in. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 


Q. Where did that occur ?—A. In Port Hood. 

WITNESS (to Mr. Foster). I staid there. The captain sent his boat 
down alongside a vessel which was there (I forget the name) and told 
the skipper he wanted him to come on board. «He went to another one, 
and then came round to me and said, ‘‘The captain wants you to go on 
board.” I went on board. The captain told me what his orders were 
from Halifax, and he showed me his marks on the chart. I well recol- 
lect three marks. One was from Margaree to Cape St. George, and 
then a straight line from East Point to Cape St. George, and then an- 
other straight line from East Point to North Cape. The captain said, 
“If you come within three miles of these lines, fishing or attempting to 
fish, I will consider you a prize.” 

Q. That is to say, you were excluded from three miles drawn from 
point to point across the Bend of Prince Edward Island?—A. Yes. He 
made those lines from the shore marks. 

Q. I want to ask yoa generally whether you regard the Magdalen 


oo as a safe fishing-ground ?—A. Yes ; as safe as any place in the 
ay 


2348 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. y is rather boisterous there when there is a wind?—A. Where is 
it not 

Q. How could you protect yourself?—A. There is no wind, but you 
can make a lee under the Islands, because you can go all round them. 

Q. How about the north shore of Prince Edward Island ?—A. We 
consider it a very bad place. 

Q. Why ?—A. You are embaygd, and the tide sets in there so from the 
easterly that it is almost impossible to beat out. When the wind has 
blown two hours the sea is so sharp a vessel can do nothing. 

Q. Do you regard that portion of the mackerel fishery which lies 
within three miles of the shore in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as important 
and valuable to American fishermen ?—A. There is a very small part 
of the mackerel caught within three miles of the land there or anywhere 
or at the Magdalen Islands, that I know of, and I have always fished 
with all the fleet and vessels there, although at times I have seen good 
fishing at Margaree. Sometimes at Margaree the vessels fish within 
three miles of the land. That is all the important inshore fishing I 
know of in the whole bay. 

Q. In regard to the herring fishery at Grand Manan, have you been in 
that neighborhood after herring ?—A. Yes, I suppose I was the man who 
introduced that business. 

Q. How many years ago was that?—A. That is 25 years ago, I guess. 

Q. Did you go there to catch herring or to buy them 7—A. That is 
the way all our vessels do; they go and buy them from the inhabitants 
there who fish the herring and freeze them. 

Q. Do you know of any herring being caught by American fishing- 
vessels in British waters about Grand Manan ?—A. No; I never knew 
any American vessel go there to fish for them. I have known the inhab- 
itants there to charter American vessels and the skipper, and to give 
the vessel such a part and the skipper such a part—say they would give 
them two shares. The vessel would lie in the harbor and they would 
fish the herring, freeze them, and sell them. If there were four parties 
they would reckon one share for the vessel, one share for the captain, 
which with the others would make six shares. They several times 
wanted to charter me to come down in the winter. 

Q. Have you ever seen American vessels there with herring nets ?— 
A. Inever did. Our nets and our fishermen cannot compete with Nova 
Scotia fishermen for herring. 

Q. Why not?—A. Their nets are finer and they understand the hang- 

.ing of them better. I have sold nets there and the people have taken 
them and seamed them,over, and the nets would do as well again as 
they did when [had them. There is no American I ever knew or heard 
of who went there to catch herring. % ; 

Q. When were you there last ?—A. I was down there last year, last 
winter. I only stopped a little while. 

Q. You have now been speaking of the frozen herring?—A. Yes; they 
are frozen herring. 

Q. Have you ever known any American vessels to fish for herring to 
salt or smoke in that vicinity ?—A. No; not there. 

Q. Eastport and Campobello are close to each other ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the line between the two countries, Campobello being British 
and Eastport American, is the center of the channel, isit not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Which has the most inhabitants, Eastport or Campobello ?—A. If 
you take thewhole of Campobello there is not much difference, but 
Eastport is the more thickly peopled. There are three villages in Cam- 
pobello. The people told me they had no trouble over the fishing, and 


ih i, te hy 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2349 


I talked with them particularly about it. They say when the pollock 
are on our side their boats are here, and when on their side our boats 
are there, so they never have any trouble about the fishing-grounds. 

Q. Do you know of any fishing done in boats there except pollock- 
fishing 7—A. No. 

Q. What kind of fish for mercantile purpose is pollock ; is it a valua- 
ble or a cheap fish ?—A. It is a cheap fish. Not so valuable as cod. 

Q. What do they sell for per pound?—A. They go from $1.25 to $3 
per quintal. ; 

Q. Within the last few years?—A. Yes. They make a good deal of 
oil; they are. well livered. 

Q. And that pollock fishery, as you understood, is common to the 
boats of the two places?—A. That is what they told me when I saw 
the boats there together. 

Q. They make a reciprocity treaty for themselves ?—A. That is as I 
understood it. At Eastport the people told me that if herring were at 
Grand Manan they would go over, and if they were on their side the 
people of Grand Manan would come over and fish in West Bay. They 
never had any trouble. 

Q. Is your information about the State of Maine sufficiently exten- 
sive to enable you to state whether the fisheries of Maine, cod and mack- 
erel particularly, have been increasing or decreasing, say for the last 
ten years ?—A. I should say they have been decreasing. 

Q. Explain.—A. The town I live in once had twenty sail of vessels 
over 50 tons; now it has not got one. 

Q. What dia these vessels do?—A. Fished for codfish and mackerel. 

Q. Did the same vessels do one business one part of the year and the 
other business the other part?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you include the whole of Deer Isle in that or merely your 
town ?—A. I can tell you for the whole of Deer Isle. There used to be 
fishing firms there that owned and fitted out vessels. There were three 
firms at Burnt Cove, Deer Isle. There were two firms at Green’s 
Landing, Charles Eden and 8. Green. The Warrens had twenty sail 
of vessels. Now there is not one solitary fishing-stand in the whole 
town of Deer Isle, and no one fishes for pollock or mackerel, unless it 
be the two Webbs. The Webbs have three vessels left. The Warrens 
haye one or two vessels left. Charles Eaton has not a vessel. There 
is a not a fleet or a barrel in Burnt Cove. 

Q. Take other towns on the coast which you know of in the vicinity 
- of Booth Bay ?—A. Lam not so well posted in regard to Booth Bay of , 
late years. . A new firm from Cape Cod has gone there, and they say 
is starting business there. I know the fishing business went down there 
greatly. McClentick, one of the principal fish-dealers, told me that it 
was about played out with them. 

Q. What is the Cape Cod firm fishing for ?—A. They are fishing for 
everything, I believe. They fit out vessels, and buy fish, herring and 
mackerel. 

Q. Give me the name of the firm.—A. I cannot remember it. 

Q. Are there any other towns. you recollect about ?—A. Yes; there 
is the town of Vinalhaven. There used to be 50 sail of vessels. there, 
and it was one of the greatest places for codfish-making in the State. 
Now there is not one vessel goes out of the harbor where there used to 
be a fleet. There are four or five vessels belong to the island and scat- 
tered all round. I believe George Hopkins is the only one in thattown 

~who bas made codfish this year. 

Q. Do you know anything about Portland ?—A. I have not been at. 


2350 AWARD OF THE FISHERY’ COMMISSION. 


Portland for seven or eight years. But I know about Bucksport and 
Castine; they have broken up in regard to fishing. 

Q. They have stopped the business ?—A. All except a few barrels. 

Q. What did Castine used to do ?—A. Castine used to be the main- 
stay of all fishing. Everybody went there to fit out, and it used to 
own a good many Bankers itself, and it used to supply vessels with 
salt and everything else. Now #he salt-stores are all gone and the ves- 
sels are all gone. I don’t know of one vessel that has gone out of Cas- 
tine to the Banks this year, and there used to be 70, 80, or 90 sail of 
Bankers fit out there yearly. There are more Bankers going out of 
Bucksport than Castine, because there are none from Castine, but noth- 
ing to what they used to be. 

Q. You remember the old bounty system ?—A. I think I do. 

Q. What was it, and what was the effect of its withdrawal ?—A. It 
used to cost about nine shillings to the dollar to get it. 

Q. How do you mean ?—A. They would get an old vessel, and hire a 
crew to go in her, and the wages and expenses would eat up all the 
bounty and considerably more. 

Q. What do you mean by getting an old vessel?—A. When the 
bounty was on, anybody who had an old vessel would let a man take 
her for nothing. If you had an old vessel you would say to me, ‘I will 
give you her to use this season if you will give me the bounty.” The 
earning of the bounty would be no expense to you, and if I could make 
the vessel earn anything I would get it. That is the way bounty catch- 
ing was carried on where I live. 

Q. Would not that increase the number of vessels by keeping old ves- 
sels afloat?—A. Yes; vessels which ought to have been dead. That is 
the way the bounty system was carried on in our locality; but there 
were vessels which earned the bounty and the bounty helped them. 

Q. The bounty was given exclusively on cod-fishing vessels ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Did those old vessels which went:cod-fishing, partly induced to do 
so by the bounty, go after mackerel any part of the year ?—A. They 
used to go after everything. . 

Q. But not during the four months they were earning their bounty ? 
—A. No. 

Q. The rest of the year they went fishing for everything ?—A. Yes; 
they did not goa great distance off. 

Q. Was the effect of withdrawing the bounty to diminish the number 
» of vessels and to place old and poor vessels out of employment ?—A. 
Yes; old vessels that were not good for anything. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 


Q. A question was asked you whether fishing on the coast of Maine 
had increased or diminished, and you said it had decreased; and you 
spoke of the number of vessels. Where did those vessels usually fish 
at the time to which you referred ?—A. Our vessels used to go to Lab- 
rador, Brown’s Banks, and Western Banks, and all round. 

Q. Along the whole coast?—A. Yes. 

Q. And to the Grand Banks ?—A. Some, but very few; I went to the 
Grand Banks in one vessel. 


By Mr. Foster : 


Q. Did your vessels come to the gulf for mackerel ?—A. No; not the 
old bounty catchers. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2351 


By Mr. Weatherbe : 


Q. You have named all the places where the vessels fished ?—A. The 
bounty catchers? Yes. 

Q. You say the effect of the bounty was, as far as your personal 
acquaintance with it goes, that people had to pay about nine milange 
on the dollar to get it?—A. Yes. 

Q. The vessels you spoke of as fishing-from the several towus on your 
coast—where did they fish? Did you think Sir Alexander Galt’s ques- 
tion referred to the bounty vessels ?—A. I thought the bounty catchers 
were meant. The other vessels fished all over the shores. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Fishing for cod or mackerel?—A. Both. I mean the firms which 
have carried on the fishing. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 


Q. I had no reference whatever to the bounty system. I want to 
know where those vessels you spoke of as sailing out of all the ports 
on your coast usually fished—-whether they fished in the gulf or on your 
own coast ?—A. All over the whole coast. 

Q. Everywhere ?—A. Yes; everywhere in the gulf, about home, and 
everywhere else. The same as they fish now. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. How far south of your place do they fish 7—A. For spring mack- 
ereling they go as far as Cape May. 

Q. Those vessels you speak of went and fished in the same places as 
the Gloucester fishermen fished ?—A. Exactly. 

Q. And they failed of late years?—A. Yes. 

Q. And your coast fishery has failed of late years ?—A. ‘Yes. 

Q. Generally 2—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know the reason the fishery on your coast has failed ; is it 
overfishing ?—A. I always thought it cost all the fish were worth to get 
them, anyhow. 

Q. Has your fishery diminished of late years?—A. It was nothing 
but unlimited credit that ever kept the fishermen up, I contend. 

Q. Then their credit failed ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that the only reason ?—A. I don’t know what other reason 
there is. That is reason enough, is it not? They are not able to carry 


,iton. They cannot make it profitable. 


Q. Is that the only reason you have to give?—A. Yes. 

Q. That want of credit has stopped them ?—A. The credit has stopped 
and the business has stopped. There is no profit in the business, they 
say. That is what has made it stop. 

Q. There used to be a profit in the business for years and years 7—A. 
I don’t know about that. 

Q. Was there never any capital in the business?—A. There was some. 

Q. For years and years there was capital in the business? For twenty 
years ?—A. Yes. 

Q. There was capital in the business twenty years, was there ?—A. I 
don’t think I understand you. 

Q. Was there capital invested to carry on the fishing business on the 
coast of Maine ?—A. I suppose there was, or else I don’t know how it 
could be carried on. 

_ Q. For a large number of years ?—A. Yes. 

Q. For 20 years ?—A. Yes. 


‘2352 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. For the last five or six years there has been no capital in it?—A. 
Yes; for about the last 10 years. 

Q. The fishing has been given up?—A. Because they did not find it 
profitable; there is no profit in it. 

Q. How is it they have failed ?—A. I cannot tell you more than there 
is no profit in the business. 

ms For twenty years they found a profit in it?—-A. I don’t know about 
that. 

Q. Don’t you know it ?—A. They did not show it; if they made money 
they would be likely to show it in some way or other. 

Q. When there was a large number of fishermen or firms carrying on 
the fishery business during those 20 years, and had capital invested in 
it, do you know whether they made money out of it?—A. No; I cannot 
swear as to what other people made. 

Q. For the last 10 years it has not been profitable?—A. I know the 
business has all gone down. 

Q. Are the fish to be caught there now, and were they of late years 7— 
A. They fish on the same ground now as they did then. 

Q. Do you know that the fisheries have failed ?—A. I don’t know. I 
don’t suppose they have. 

Q. Do you know anything about it?—A. I know as much as anybody. 

Q. How do you know as much as anybody ?—A. I am in the way of 
eno 08 what vessels bring in at Gloucester, Booth Bay, and Mount 

esert. 

Q. For twenty years there was capital invested in the fishing busi- 
ness?—A. Yes. 

Q. For the last 10 years the capital has been withdrawn ?—A. With- 
drawn or lost. 

Q. Do you know why ?—A. No. 

Q. Can you tell me, in regard to those 10 years, when the capital was 
invested, anything about me statistics of the catches ard vessels 7—A. 
No. 

Q. For the last ten years can you tell anything about the statisties of 
the catches or vessels?—A. I don’t keep books, and I cannot tell you 
how much a man lost or gained. 

Q. Have you been engaged in the fishing business yourself?—A. I 
have not been engaged in cod fishing, and not much mackereling. 


No. 33. 


WEDNESDAY, October 3, 1877. 
The Conference met. 
The cross-examination of EZRA TURNER, of Isle of Haut, Deer Isle, 
State of Maine, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, 
was resumed. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 

Question. You are acquainted with a place cailed Lubec ?7—Answer. 
lak 
Q. I will give you the names of some places and ask you if you are 
acquainted with them: Lubec, Perry, Pembroke, Eastport, Cutler, 
Machbias, Campobello, West Isles, Point Lepreau.—A. I am acquainted 
with Point Lepreau, Cutler, Eastport, and Lubec. Machias I was never 
in but once. 

Q How often have you been in the other places ?—A. I cannot tell 
you; a great many. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2353 


Q. Recently, how often ?—A. I have not been there these three years. 

Q. In any of them ?—A. Yes; I was in Cutler two years ago. 

q. Since the Washington Treaty came into operation have you been 
there ?—A. When did that come into operation? I was in Cutler two 
years ago; I have not been in Eastport these three years. 

Q. Can you give the Commission any statistics in regard to the fish- 
eries at those places ?—A. I cannot. 

Q. Have you taken any pains to obtain and make up statistics 7—A. 
No; that is as to the quantity caught, you mean. 

Q. Anything at all with regard to the fisheries. Have you made up 
statistics ?—A. No. 

Q. None whatever ?—A. No. 

Q. You have spoken of Grand Manan ?7—A. Yes. 

(. When were you there last ?—A. Two years ago, I think. 

Q. How long were you there ?—A. I was there a fortnight. 

Q. How many years were you there previously ?—A. Grand M&inan 
is a place I often go to. 

-Q. How often have you been there since the Washington Treaty came 
into force 7—A., I cannot say. j 

Q. Give the number of times as near as you can?—A. I was at 
Grand Manan two years ago, and staid a fortnight. I have been there 
off and on these fifty years. 

Q. Take the last four years, how long have you been there altogether; 
one month ?—A. No; I never staid a month there. 

Q. Altogether, during the last four years, have you been there three 
weeks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. During the last ten years how long have you spent there ?7—A. I 
cannot tell. 

Q. Can you give any idea?—A. I cannot remember. 

Q. We have gone to a great deal of trouble in regard to getting 
statistics of Grand Manan fishery and the fishery on that coast; [ want 
to know what you know about it?—A. I have been going off and on to 
Grand Manan, sometimes staying one day and one night, and sometimes 
three or four days, and once two weeks. That was the longest time I 
ever stopped on one occasion at Grand Manan. : 

Q. Generally you only staid one day, and went away the next day 7?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Did you take any opportunity while there to gather any statistics 
with regard to the fisheries?—A. I knew how they were doing in fish- 

“ing. 

Q. Do you know how many boats they use?—A. They use boats and 
vessels clear round there. 

Q. Did you, during the period you were there, make inquiries; and, 
a 80, - what extent, and from whom ?—A. As to how many boats were 
there ; 

Q> As to statistics about the fisheries?—A. No. 

Q. Anything at all?—A. No; I could see for myself. 

Q. Did you make any inquiries whatever ?—A. Yes; about the fish- 
ing, from Mr. Caskill, the largest merchant there. 

‘Q. And with regard to the number of boats engaged 7?—A. I did not 
ask the vumber of boats engaged. 

Q. You did make inquiries, from whom?—A. Mr. Caskill, of Grand 
Manan. 

Q. He resides there now ?—A. He is there now. : 

Q. On what subject did you make inquiries ?—A. I asked him how - 
the fishing was this year, aud he said very bad as yet. 


148 F 


2354 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


sl What year was that ?—A. Four years ago; it was in July I was 
there. 

Q. Give any other inquiries you made and tell me from whom you 
made them.— A. I did not make any inquiries about the fishing from 
anybody else. 

Q. You asked no other question but what you have said ?—A. Not 
from him. 

Q. From any person else 7—A. From John Beales, who left Moose-a- 
beck and went down there, bought a place, and staid there and fished. 

Q. What did you ask him ?—A. How he bad done in fishing, and he 
said a good deal better than when le was up at Moose-a-beck. It was 
fishing in a small boat. 

Q. That was all you asked him 7—A. Yes. 

4 Q. Did you meke any other inguiries ?—A. I don’t recollect that I 
id. 
o you know Walter B. McLaughlin, fishery overseer, Grand 
Manan ?—A. I do not. 

Q. You have heard of him ?—A. I don’t think I ever heard that name 
How long has he been oversecr ? 

Q. A great many years. He is county councilor, captain of the 
mnilitia, justice of the peace, and light-house keeper; he was born in 
Nova Scutia, and resided all bis life at Grand Manan, and is 48 years 
old. You know where the light-house is?—A. Yes, and been to it. 

Q. I will read you some extracts from Mr. MeLaugbhlin’s testimony. 
After showing that he had taken up a good deal of time in preparing 
statistics, he says as follows with regard to American boats: 


Q. Well, those boats—those American boats—do they equal or outnumber ours ?—A. I 
think they outnumber ours. I would not say positively. 1 am convinced in my own mind 
that they outnumber ours. 

Q. Those boats supply the coast of Maine with fish 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Of people do not compete with them in those markets ?—A. Our fish go to Boston, 
Portland, or New York. Those boats supply their own coast. 

~Q. How often do they go home with their fish 7—A. They fish a week or so and then go 
home. They have a nice little cabin in the boat and the men sleep in that. As soon as 
they get a load they go home. 

Q. How do they keep their fish 7—A. They salt them. 

Q. How is it about the fresh fish ?—-A. Well, when they come for fresh fish in the winter 
time, of course they have larger boats or vessels. 

Q. And the fish that are taken by the Americans in the summer they salt ?—A. Certainly, 
unless they sell them fresh in the American market. It that case the vessels come supplied 
with ice. There are a few that ran to Machias and other places with fresh fish, the same 
as they do to Eastport or Lubec; but any that make a business of selling the fish fresh 
must have an ice-house. 

Q. Those American boats that you spoke of all fish within three miles ?—A. Yes; I con- 
sider that they all fish within three miles—a marine league. Boat-fishing means that. 

Q. Now, about how many American vessels fish on the coast during the season ?—A. It 
would be hard to tell that. It has never been my duty to count them. 

Q. They come in es numbers and they generally outnumber ours ?—A. Yes; our peo- 
ple at Grand Manan fish but little in vessels. 

Q. Do these vessels come in fishing within three miles?—A. At a certain time of the year. 
In winter it is entirely within. The fall and winter fishing is entirely within. 

Q. What besides herring are caught in summer ?—A. Cod, pollack, and hake. 

Q. They catch in boats and vessels both ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, in the spring, are you not visited by the Grand Manan fleet from Gloucester ?— 
A. Yes; they used formerly to come to Grand Manan direct. Generally now they go to 
Eastport and get the Eastport people to catch bait for them. 

Q. When you say ‘‘formerly,’’ do you mean after the Treaty of Washington?—A. Yes. 
They did not come before that much. It is since 1871 that have come principally. They 
will come down every spring. 

* * * * * * 
Q. And now they come chiefly to Eastport to employ Eastport fishermen, who catch the 
’ fish and bring them to them?—A. The big vessels are not fitted out for herring-fishing. 
They take an Eastport vessel in company with them, and come over aud anchor in our 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2355 


waters. They bring their own fishermen with them, and anchor in our waters, and get 
their bait there. They sometimes come in the fall for bait. P 
* * * * * * 

Q. Where have they gone this year ?—A. I think to Campobello, Deer Island, and those 

laces. 

: Q. Still in British waters ?—A. Yes; we have the herring fishery. 

Q. How many came down in the spring ?—A. To the Grand Manan grounds, I should say 
forty sail. I would not say positively. 

Q. As a practical fisherman, you say about forty sail of them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you see them come in the fall?—A. Yes; at all times of the year. 

* * * * * *% * 

Q. Then you believe the amount you have given is an underestimate ?—A. I know it 
must be over half a million dollars; that is, our old $500,000. 

Q. That is within the mark for your own island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Of the British catch?—A. Yes; our own Grand Manan people, because sometimes 
they come over from Campobello and other places, but I have nothing to do with that. 

Q. Well, now, is the American catch larger or smaller?—A. I think it is larger. 

Q. Have you any doubt?—A. No; because their appliances are so much better than ours, 
and I think their men outnumber ours. . 

Q. I suppose they are just as assiduous in using their appliances ?—A, Just as much so. 
One of their vessels will take-more haddock in a short time than ours will in a whole year. 
One of theirs took 150,000 pounds in a week, while all of ours took only 50,000 pounds in 
the whole year. That was sold fresh. 


Do you know anything about that, whether it is true or not true ?— 
A, Some of it is exactly true, and some of it I don’t know about. About 
the Eastport boats outnumbering the Grand Manan boats, I don’t know 
whether that is true or not. 

Q. Mr. McLaughlin further said : 

Q. On the mainland you say our catch must be half a million, and the American catch is. 
equal to that?—A. Yes; I think so, because they come down in the winter and follow these 
fine harbors up. : 

Q. You make for the mainland and islands a million and a half to be the catch of the 
Americans, and the same for our own people ?—A. I think that would be fair. 

Q. That is within our waters, within three mariue miles ?—A. Yes. 

Are you able to say anything about that, whether it is correct or 
not ?-—A. I have been at Grand Manan all my days. I know but just. 
one place round there where you can get bottom within three miles, I 
was going tosay. Thatis right between Swallow’s Tail and Long Island, 
where it is not more than three miles from land to land.. Thereis good 
hooking there, and that is where all the Grand Manan fishermen go for 
hake, cod, and pollack. I cannot say about the Eastport people, for 


. they are so much connected with the Grand Manan people. The East- 


port vessels go there to fish, and the Grand Manan people come and fish 
in Passamaquoddy Bay. Inever heard of anytrouble. They told me at 
Eastport there was no trouble about the fishing in the river. In regard 
to herring catches, it was Campobello men who chartered Eastport ves- 
sels, and they always tried to charter me. They get the vessels to go in 
and live in, and give the skipper a certain share and the vessel a certain 
share, and carry their own nets, and catch the fish. I never knew an 
American carry a net there in my life. I have been there when the men 
have caught herrings from St. John’s to Campobello, along the whole 


Shore. I have been there six years running buying herring, and I 


never saw an American vessel fishing there in my life, except those 
chartered in that way. They got a Lubec pinkey there once. Four men 
at Campobello chartered her, They had no skipper ou her then, and 
they gave a certain share for the use of the vessel. I don’t know what 
the catch was. ; 

Q. I will also read some extracts from the testimony of Mr. James 
McLean, merchant, Letite Passage, N. B. Do you know Letite Pas- 
sage ?—A, Yes. 


2356 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Do you know Mr. James McLean, merchant, there 7—A. I don’t 
know thename. I cannot recollect the name of oue man there, though 
I know a good many by sight. 

Q. Mr. McLean said: 


Q. You live close to the shore of the bay ?—A. Close to the shore. 
Q. There are a number of harbois at that part of the coast; in which harbor do you carry 
-on business 7—A. We have a store a: Letite and another at Black Bay. 


Do yourecognize him. They are both places in the Bay of Fundy ?—A. 
They are 50 miles apart. 

Q. He keeps a store at each place. Are you acquainted with him 7— 
A. Iam not acquainted with him. 

Q. Mr. McLean said: 

Q. You are acquainted with the fishery from Lepreau to Letite?—A. Yes; very well. 


Q. That is along the mainland ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Among the islands lying alung the coast are Campobello, Deer Island, and some minor 
islands ?—A. Yes. 

@. Besides Graud Manan?—A. Yes. f - 

* * * * * * * 

Q. Ou the mainland, take from Lepreau to Letite, how many vessels and boats are em- 
ployed by British subjects ?—A. From Lepreau to Letite I should think there are between 
50 and 60 vessels. 


That is what he says with regard «to British fishing-vessels. Mr. Mc- 
Lean further says: 


Q. Before the treaty of Washington, in 1871, how did you deal with the fish? Did the 
Americans come in as much after the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty and before they 
commenced under the Washington Treaty 7—A. Not catching herrings. 

Q. Did they do so after 1871 ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Tell the Commission how you dealt with the herring before 1871?—A. We dealt with 

-them as we do now. The Americans came down and bought them; if not, we loaded a 
vessel ourselves and shipped them frozen to New York. 

Q. Since the Washington Treaty, the Americans have come down and fished a great 
deal ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are the fishing-grounds in your locality entirely in British waters ?—A. Onur herring 
fishery is altogether in British waters—all that I know of; I don’t know of any in Ameri- 
can waters. 

Q. Is that correct 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Mr. McLean said also: 

Q. How many fish in the winter time ?—A. In the herring-fishing on our coast in winter 
there are from 100 to 125 American vessels fishing, small and large. 

Is that true?—A. I should think it was, if they call it fishing when 
Gloucester vessels come down. 

Q. Are there that number of American vessels fishing in those wa- 
ters ?—A. I want you to tell me what you call “fishing,” whether by 
money, hook and line, or nets. That many vessels go there to buy her- 
ring. If you refer to 125 sail of American vessels, I will grant that 
number of American vessels go there. 

Q. How do you know that ?—A, I never counted them, but seeing so 
large a number, and knowing so many, and that gentleman stating the 
number to be 125, I don’t doubt it. 

Q. He does not refer to Gloucester vessels. Is it true or not 7—A. I 
cannot swear to it. He says it is se, and I think it is. 

Q. He does not refer to Gloucester vessels 7—A. He does not refer to 
any places. 

Q. He says: 

Q. That is from Lepreau to Latite?—A. Yes, off Beaver Harbor, Black’s Harbor, Black 
Bay, and Lepreau. 

Q. What size are the vessels ?—A. They range from 10 up to probably 40 or 50 tons. 


Is that correct 7—A. No. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2357 


Q. Are you able to contradict it?—A. Yes; as regards the vessels I 
have seen. 

Q. Have you any means of knowing ?—A. No; except what I saw 
during the six years I was there. 

@. You have been to those places 7?—A. Yes. 

' Q. How often ?—A. Six winters running. 

@. Within the last four years, how often ?—A. I have not been there 
the last four years. 

Q. Have you been there the last ten years ?—A. Yes. 

(. Have you been there the last six years ?—A, Yes, I think so. 

Q. Not since ?—A. I don’t think so. 

Q. Are you able to speak with regard to the fisheries there during the 
last six years ?—A. No; but I never heard there had been any great 
change. 

Q. Stave you endeavored to get any statistics in regard to the fishing 
on your own coast or any of those coasts ?—A. No; I never knew they 
were wanted. 

Q. You never made any inquiries ?—A. No. 

Q. Then you don’t undertake to contradict any of this evidence 7—A. 
Isay there never were 125 sail of American vessels of that description 
buying herring there during the six years I was there or one-fourth of 
that number. 

Q. I am asking in regard to recently 7—A. I cannot say what were 
there last winter. 

Q. Mr. McLean said further: - 


Q. All the rest of the fleet of 150 vessels fish for herring ?—A. Yes, of the 100 or 125 
vessels. ‘ 

Q. Will you state to the Commission the process of fishing, what the Americans do when 
they come down there ?—A. They come down in their vessels. They frequent our harbors 
in blustering weather, and in fine weather they go out in the morning and set their nets. 


Is that correct 7?—A. They never used to do so when I was there. 

Q. You are not able to say anything about the fishing there since 
always the Washington Treaty 7?—A. Thatis new fishing tome. They 
used to stay in the harbors while I was there, and set their nets. 


They have anchors to their nets and large warps, and set a gang of nets, two or four nets 
toa boat. The nets are allowed to remain out all night and are taken up in the morning, if it 
is not windy. If it is too windy the vessels remain in harbor, and the nets have to remain in 
the water until there is a chance to getthem taken in. The vessels do not take up the nets ; 
the boats are sent after them, and in blustery weather it is not a very nice job. The herring 
is taken on board the vessels. Sometimes if there is a large catch the men take the herring 
to the beach and -freeze them; if there is only a small catch they freeze then on deck, but 
they cannot freeze the fish so well on deck as on shore. 

Q. These vessels which receive the herring as soon as frozen are different vessels ?—A. 
Yes. They are outside of the 125 I mentioned. 

Q. These are the American vessels which are in the harbors with buyers on board ?—A. 
Chiefly American vessels. 
* * * . * * * 

Q. It is much more convenient to land?—A. Yes; with large quantities it is much more 
convenient to land. 

Q. Is it not a very great convenience and privilege to the Americans to be allowed to do 
so ?—A. I should think so; I look upon it as such. 

Q. The Americans themselves consider it a privilege to land?—A. I suppose so. 

Q. Obviously it is a very great privilege 7—A. It looks that way. I know that all our 
fishermen have to land to freeze the fish, and the Americans follow the same methods. 
There is no difference between them at all; at least I do not see any difference. They fish 
in the harbor just in common with our own men. k . 


Has that changed any since you were there?—A. Yes; I never saw 


an American heave a net while I was there and neve: heard of one. I 
never saw a Gloucester vessel have a net. . 


2358 AWARD OF 1HE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You are acquainted with the Bay of Passam iquoldy 7—A. Yes. 
Q. Mr. McLean says: 


Q. fag that not at one time a great herring-groun] ?—A. It was once a splendid fishing- 
ground. 


Is that correct ?—A. Yes. 


Q. Since the negotiation of the Washingtoa Treaty, and s'nce the Americans have fished 
there, what has become of it? 

Q. Are you able to answer that ?—A. The fishing-ground is there yet. 

Q. I will read you Mr. McLean’s answer: 


A. It has been destroyed within the last two years. It is now no good whatever. 


You are not abie to say anything about that ?—A. I did not know there 
had been any eruption there that had made any alteration in the bay. 

©. 

Q. This has been done by American fisherman ?—A. Not altogether. The American fish- 
ermen helped to do it; a great many Americans were concerned in it, but our fishermen were 
in it too. ’ 

Q. Were your fishermen driven to it, in order to compete with the Americans ?—A. They 
have to do it; they must do it. 

Were you aware of the.nature of the fishing that went ou there ?7—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Was there any trawling there in your day?—A. No. That is a 
herring-ground. 

Q. Mr. McLean says: 


Q. Another mode of fishing—trawling—is practiced with larger fish, such as pollack, had- 
dock, &c. Explain the effect of it?—A. ‘Trawling bas been pursued, as I understand it, dur- 
ing the last six or seven years. 

A. There was no trawling in Passamaquoddy Bay while I was there ; 

_so the people told me. I talked with them about fishing. 

Q. When you gave direct evidence I understood you to be giving evi- 
dence down to the present time with regard to the value of the British 
fisheries; you were not doing so? You cannot speak of the fisheries 
within the last six years ?—A. No. 

Q. You did not intend to speak of the last six years?—A. No. 


Q. Along the coast of Maine, say from Eastport westward, there lives a large population 
who fish entirely in our waters?—A. Yes. They come from Lubec, Perry, Pembroke, and 
Eastport, and along by Cutler, and westward of Lubec, and still farther away than that. 

Q. And from Machias ?—A. I think so. 

Q. They all come and fish in our waters?—A. Yes. 


That is since the Washington Treaty?—A. I think a good deal of that 
is correct. Those boats come over and try in British waters, over at 
Grand Manan. 

Q. | 

Q. Within three miles of their coast there is no fishing of whith you are aware?—A. Yes. 

Q. And this is a population that lives by fishing alone ?—A. From Eastport and along 
there they follow fishing for a livelihood, beyond question. 

_Is that correct ?—A. Yes. 

Q. 

Q. So that a large body of American fishermen gain their whole livelihood in our waters ?- 
—A. Yes; those that fish there do. 


Q. What would you say is the quantity of herring alone that comes to Eastport in the 
course of the season—how many millions go to that small town during this period? 


Are you able to answer that ?—A. I could not. 


~ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2359 


Q. The witness answered it in this way : 
A. I should think, at the least calculation, from seven to ten millions. 


A. He means herrings by the count I suppose. 

Q. Are there from seven to ten millions ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. 

Q. And of all the herring caught by you, more than three-quarters goes to Americans, 
either for food or bait ?—A. Of frozen herring? Yes. 

Q. And of the $50,000 or $60,000 worth that you take, what proportion goes to the Ameri- 
cans 7—A,. About one-third. 

Q. Where do vou sell the rest?—A. In the Dominion and New Brunswick ; some are 
shipped to the West Indies. 


I suppose you were not acquainted with those matters at all. Have 
you any knowledge of them?—A. Yes; Ihave. I think that statement 
is correct. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. James Lord, of Deer Island ?—A. I 
am not acquainted in Deer Island. There are two Deer Islands, I be- 
long to what is called Deer Isle. 

. How many vessels have Campobello fishermen now ?—A. I cannot 
tell. A good many of their skippers go out of Gloucester. I don’t 
know how many vessels are owned at Campobello; Icould not give you 


* an idea. 


Q.-Mr. James Lord is fishing overseer at Deer Island ?—A. Yes. 
Q. He said: 


Q. Now, is it part of your official duty to ascertain the number of boats and vessels en- 
gaged in the fishery there ?—A. It is. 

Q. Can you tell me what is the number of schooners or vessels 7—A. There are 28 vessels 
engaged in the fishery in my district. : ; 

Q. Of what tonnage ?—A. The aggregate tonnage is about 700 tons. 

Q. How many men are employed there?—A. I have a memorandum. (Reads.) There 
were 171 men engaged in the vessels fishing. 
Q. How many boats are there?—A, 234. 

* * * - # * * * 
Q. Do the Americans fish much on the coast ?—A. Yes; they fish in common with our 
fishermen, on the same fishing grounds. 


Is that correct ?—A. They do. Eastport fishermen and those people 


are all one. 
Q. 


; = How many vessels have they ?—A. I should think they had full as many as our 
olks. 


A. Should think it is likely that Eastport has. 


Q. Campobello employs about how many vessels and how many boats ?—A. I could not 
give you exactly the number. I should say it was about equal to WestIsles. I should not 
think there wou!d be much difference. 


Are you aware of that?—A. Eastport, Lubec, and Campobello are . 
all one, and the people live in sight of one another, and get on agreeably 
about fishing. I talked with them about. it wren I was at Eastport 
seeing them. ; ; ela 


Q. Then off Campobello there is about $180,000 worth taken by our people ?—A. I should 


say so. . 
. And $180,000 worth at West Isles ?—A. Yes. . 
. And the Americans take an equal catch in both places?—A. Yes. 


‘Is that correct ?—A. I should think so. 


2360 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. 


Q. All within three miles?—A. Yes: with the exception of one or two vessels from Deer 
Is and that go outside. The chief catches are inshore. 


Ts that correct ?—A. Yes. 


Q. Well, when I asked you for an estimate of the catch, and you gave me $180,000, you 
did not include in that amount the fish that was caught outside ?7—A. No. 


You do no include that either, I presume ?—A. No. 


Q. That is about a million?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any doubt you are underestimating rather than overestimating it?—A. No 
doubt that is under, if anything. 

Q. That is taken by British subjects ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then the American fishermen, do they take on these coasts as much every year as the 
British subjects, or more ?7—A. I think they do fully as much. I have no doubt. If I were 
going to say either more or less, I would say more. 

A. I don’t think that is correct. 

Q. Do you know anything about it?—A. Nothing more than that I 
was there fishing. I have not been there for six years, but I know 
about it. 

Q. What was the quantity when you were there—$900,000?—A. Ican _ 
give no kind of estimate. 

Q. Would it be $500,000 ?—A. I could not giveany kind of an estimate. 

Q. Would you undertake to say it was not 2500,000?—A. No; I could 
not say any amount. 


Q. Is there any fish on the American shore at all? Are you aware of any fish within the 
three-mile limit ?—A. There are none worth talking about. None of our fishermen ever visit 
that coast for the sake of fish. 


What do you say ?—A. I say that is not true. Before I left home 
there was a Grand Manan vessel in at Deer Island, the skipper of which 
wanted me to pilot him down to Isle of Haut not to catch mackerel. I 
would have done it if I had not had a boat of my own. 

Q. You are able to qualify the statement by that instance; are you 
able to give any other instance ?—A. I have known of British vessels 
being in our waters. 

Q. Tell me what vessels they were.—A. I don’t know. Grand Manan 
vessels have no names painted on their sterns. 

Q. Then never mind their names. How many were there; dil you 

count them ?—A. There have been three which I have been acquainted 
with. : 
' Q. How long ago was that ?—A. Thirty years ago the first one; and 
she belonged to Brier Island; the last ones were on Sunday last or 
Sunday previous. —— 

Q. Those are the only ones you can mention at present ?— A. Yes. 


By Mr. Foster: 


q. Was it this summer you saw the two vessels ?—A. Sunday before 
last. 

Q. The quantity of ten millions of herrings was spoken of. Can you 
give the Commission an idea of what herring are worth each 7—A. They 
vary in size. 

Q. If you take the value of 1,000 or 100 herring 7—A. If they aver- 
aged one cent they would do very well, I think. 

Q. Do they average one cent? How many are there in a barrel, and 
what is the price of a barrel ?—A. I cannot say. I had very hard luck. 


’ ° 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2361 


I lost $600 the first cruise. and on the other three or four cruises I 
hardly got out square. I was very unlucky. If you don’t hit the mar- 
ket at Gloucester you get shoved overboard. 

Q. That is when they want bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you intend to assent to the statement that all the herring- 
fishing you know of isin British waters ?—A. Not by any means. In 
winter it is the only place where they catch them. I[ don’t know but that 
there is as good fishing on our shore, but we never catch them in winter, 
and never tried; but we do in spring and summer, and now they 
are doing as well in Portland herring-fishing as was ever done anywhere. 

Q. There is herring-fishing all along the United States coast ?—A. I 
rather think there is. 

Q. You say you did not mean to say in cross-examination that all the 
herring- fishing is in British waters. Will you enumerate the places on 
the United States coast where herring are caught in considerable quan- 
tities, and the season of the year when they are caught ?—A. I don’t 
know of any place on the whole coast but which, at certain times of the 
year, has large quantities of herring. At Isle of Haut, for instance, 
we were getting from 5 to 15 barrels a night in one net when I left there. 
They were small-sized herring; the nets were one-inch mesh. They 
sunk the nets and lost some of them. The people had no means of 
smoking the herring, so they salted them for lobster bait. There are 
100 sail vessels which make it a practice to go in the fall to catch her- 
ring. They make Portland their headquarters. They strike for Wood 
Island, and go eastward to Cape Porpoise, and clear along into Boston 
Bay, and,down by the Graves, and they catch more herring than is 
caught anywhere I know of in British North America. : 

Q. Did you mean to assent to the statement that American vessels 
fish for herring in British waters as a fact you know of ?—A. Not with 
nets. They buy berring there. JI never knew an American to have a 
net there, and I never heard of one. ; 

Q. Did you mean to assent to the statement that there were several 
fishing towns in Maine which gained their whole livelihood by fishing in 
British waters ?—A. I do not know of any such business. 

Q. Will you state whether you understand that. there are any fishing 
towns in Maine the inhabitants of which get their living by fishing in 
British waters ?—A. I don’t know of one. 

Q. Did you mean to say, in answer to Mr. Weatherbe’s question, that 
there were any towns on the coast of Maine the inhabitauts of which 
get their living by fishing in British waters?—A. No; but I do think 
the people of: Eastport and Grand. Manan are like one, and fish back 
and forth. - 

Q. That is what you stated yesterday ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You say that the frozen herring business, as far as you know, is 
carried on in British waters entirely ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In answer to questions put to you yesterday with regard to the 
failure of the fisheries of Maine, did you refer to the failure of the fish- 
ing business or to the failure of the catch of fish ?—A. I meant the fish- 
ing business. | 

Q. How is it as to the catch of fish off the coast of Maine?—A. I 
cannot say that the catch has materially altered there, although fish are 
not so plentiful as they used to be. But I don’t think that the change 
in the catch makes so much difference as the price and expense of get- 
ting them, for Maine is about bankrapt from end to end in the fishing 
business. 

Q. When the fishing-vessels of your own town arf! its vicinity, and 


2362 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the other places you spoke of yesterday, were engaged in fishing, where 
did they catch their fish? Was it off the shores of the United States 
or off the coast of the British provinces, or both 7—A. From the Grand 
Banks to Cape Cod, in every place where they now carry it on. They 
had equally as good vessels as anybody, and went all over the shores. 

Q. After what kind of fish?—A. All kinds. They did not go so much 
for halibut our way as for codfish aud mackerel. But it is estimated by 
the best judges of the fisheries that our State has depreciated 60 per 
cent., and in a good many places I know it has 100 per cent. 

Q. What has depreciated ?—A. The fishing business. 


By Mr. Weatherbe : 


Q. The reason they do not try to fish on the coast of Maine is because 
the fishing is better up in the Bay of Fundy ?—A. They cannot live by 
fishing, go where they will. 

Q. 1 thought you told Mr. Foster that you did not know but that the 
fish were there, but you did not try to fish them there ?—A. I did not 
say we tried to fish for them. I say I did not know but what the fish- 
ing is very nearly the same as usual. 

Q. Your fishermen do not now try to catch fish on the coast of Maine ?— 
A. They try somewhere; it is their business. 

Q. I understood you to-say they do not try to catch fish on the coast 
of Maine ?—A. I did not say so. 

Q. Do they try ?—A. Yes; we have plenty of vessels and boats all 
the time trying to fish on the coast of Maine. 

Q. But the whole business, you say, is bankrupt ?—A. Pretty much 
so; pretty much abandoned. There used to be 125 sail of ves#els which 
fitted out from Castine; I don’t know of one this year. 


No. 34. 


_ SAMUEL T. RoweE, of Gloucester, Mass., fisherman, called on behalf 
of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. Your business has been that of a fisherman and skipper of 
fishing vessels all your life?—Answer. Yes. 
-  Q. How old are you ?—A. 55 years. 
Q. What was the first year you were in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence 
fishing for mackerel?—A. I was there in 1845. 
Q. You had been in the gulfa good many times before you were cap- 
tain, had you not?—A. No; only one year; one trip. 
When were you first captain ?—A. In 1846. 
. What was the vessel ?—A. Champion. 
When were you in the guif next ?—A. In 1851. 
In what schooner ?7—A. O’Connell. 
Were you in the gulf afterward ?—A. Yes. 
In what years ?—A. 1551, 1852, 1853, and 1855. . 
You were not there in 1854?—A. No. 
As skipper every time?—A. Yes. 
. Were you there in any other vessels ?—A. I was there in the Oco- 
nowoc. 
Q. What years were you in the gulf in that vessel ?—A. 1856, 1857, 
and 1858; three years. 
Q. Then what schooner did go in 7—A. I was in the Alferetta in 1859. 
Q. How many years did you remain in that vessel ?—A. From 1859 
antil last year. 


LELELLLOO 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2363 


Q. Were vou in the gulf all those years 7?—A. No. 

@. Do you remember how many years you were in command of that 
vessel in the gulf?—A. I was in the gulf all but two years, I think, 
1870 and 1871. I have not been in the gulf since 1874.—1 was skipper 
of the vessel. 

Q. I will take your experience of fishing in the gulf in the Alferetta, 
beginning in 1859. How large a scboouer was she ?—A, 55 tons. 

q. New measurement ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. In 1859 what was your catch ?—A. 220 barrels. 

Q. In 1860 what was it?—A. We got about the same. 

Q. In 1861?—A. We got 310 barrels, I think. 

Q. 1862?—A. We got 420 or 425 barrels; [ could not say to four or 
five barrels. 

Q. 1863’—A. We made two trips, and got 330 barrels each trip. 

Q. Take that year when you had 330 barrels each of two trips, and 
tell the Commission where they were caught.—A. They were mostly 
caught at the Magdalen Islands. The tirst trip was all caught at the 
Magdalen Islands. 

Q. And the second trip?—A. The largest part was caught at the 
Magdalen Islands and between that aud Margaree, about half way 
across, I think. 

Q. Wereany of the second trip in 1863,caught inshore 7—A. No. 

Q. In 1864 what was your catch?—A. 1 think 320 barrels each trip. 
We made two trips. 

Q. For what quantity was your vessel fitted ?—A. 330 or 340 barrels. 

Q. Those years you got nearly full fares each time 7—A. Nearly. 

Q. Where were those two trips in 1864 taken ?—A. Mostly at the 
Magdalen Islands; about 50 or 60 barrels were taken at Margaree 
broad off on the fall trip. 

Q. Those taken at Margaree, were they taken inshore or off shore ?— 
A. I should judge five or six miles out, out of the range of the island, 
between that and Cape Mabou. 

Q. In 1865 what did you catch ?—A. We made two trips, and caught 
240 and 225 barrels. 

Q. Where were those taken 7—A. Mostly at Magdalen Islands ; some 
few might have been caught somewhere else. We caught some few 
some years on the fall trip between Cape George and Port Hood, round 
the Fisherman’s Bank, and between the island and Cape George. 

Q. In 1866 what did you catch ?—A. 300 barrels the first trip and 115 


“the second. 


Q. Where did you take the first trip ?—A. At Magdalen Islands. 

Q. All of them 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you take the second trip?—A. We got part of them at 
Magdalen Islands. We caught the trip round in different places; but 
most of them we got at Magdalen Islands, 70 or 80 barrels. 

Q. Were you licensed in 1866?7—A. Yes. 

Q. In 1867 you were in the gulf again ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you then licensed ?—A. Yes; I think so. 

Q. How many barrels did you get in 1867?—A. 300 barrels. 

Q. Where were they taken ?—A. At Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Did you fish anywhere else?—A. No; I don’t think we did on 
that trip. : 

Q. In 1868 were you in the gulf again?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. Were you licensed that year ?—A. I don’t think we were. 

Q. How many barrels did you get?—A. Somewhere about 280 bar- 

rels, I think. 


2364 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Where were those taken ?—A. Most of them at Magdalen Islands. 
That is mostly our fishing-ground, except late in the fall, when we get 
a few round at other places. 

Q. In 1869 were you in the gulf?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many did you get then ?—A. About 260 barrels, I think. 

Q. Where were they taken ?—A. We got most of them at Magdalen 
Islands. Some, I think, we caught between Cape George and Margaree. 
We got some in some years otf Cape Breton, between Cape George and 
Port Hood, and off Fisherman’s Bank. Late in the fall we would go 
round there, and sometimes pick up a few barrels, thirty or forty, and 
some vessels less. 

Q. In those years were you in the habit of fishing in the Bend of 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. I have been there, but I have fished there 
very little. 

Q. Did you then fish within three miles of the shore?—A. No. The 
very few times I was there to try, I generally tried from seven to ten 
miles out. I have not been there for a number of years. 

Q. In 1870 were you on the American coast or in the gulf?—A. On 
the United States coast. 

Q. Fishing for mackerel ?— A. I think we were cod-fishing in 1870. 

Q. You were not in the gulf in 1870 and 1871?7—A. No. 

Q. Were you in the gulf in 1872?7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many barrels did you get ?—A. 315, or about that number. 

@. Where were those taken ?—A. We got most of them at Magdalen 
Islands. We caught a few at Margaree, between that and Chetacamp. 

Q. Inshore or out ?—A. I think we were out four miles. 

Q. In 1873 what did you get in the gulf?—A. I think 290 barrels. 

Q. How long were you in getting them ?—A. We went into the gulf 
in July and came out somewhere about October 20. 

Q. In 1874 were you there again ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What did you get then ?—A. I think we had about 315 barrels 
that year. 

Q. Will you describe that voyage ?—A. In 1874 we were there all the 
season. We went into Canso and landed fifty barrels of mackerel. We 
afterwards took them on board and carried them home. 

Q. How many barrels did you get that year ?—A. 315 barrels. 

Q. Were those packed barrels?—A. No; sea barrels. 

Q. The collector at Port Mulgrave says you made two trips, and got 
230 barrels the first trip and 170 the second. That is not so?—A. No; 
it is not so. 

Q. Did you ever give anybody the statement that it was so?—A. No; 
I never did. I only made one trip in 1874. 

Q. Where were your fish taken that year?—A. At the Magdalen Isl- 
ands. 5 

Q. All of them 7—A. Yes. 

Q. If I have added up this statement correctly, you have caught in 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence nearly 5,000 barrels—4,930. You have been 
up here during 14 seasons, and you got 19 trips; the average of your 
trips is 259,%, barrels, and the average of your seasons, 3521 barrels. 
Now, I want you to take your last trip in the gulf in 1874, when you 
obtained 315 sea barrels, as you say, and let me see how profitable that 
was to you. In the first place, with whom did you fit out?—A. With 
Rowe & Jordan. 

Q. Mr. Rowe, of that firm, is your brother ?—A. Yes. 

Q. As captain that year in the Alferetta, you had in the first place 
your own catch as sharesman, [ suppose ?—A. Yes. , 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2365 


Q. Who caught the most mackerel on board that year ?—A. I did. 

Q. You were high-liner, as it is called ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Has the captain choice of positions ?—A. Yes. He has one of the 
best berths; there are two about alike, and the captain has one of them. 
He has his choice anyway. : 

Q. What did your sharecome to?—A. Somewhere about $125 or $130, 
I think. 

Q. Did that include your percentage as captain ?—A. No. 

(). What percentage did you have as captain ?—A. 34 per cent. 

Q. What was your net stock that year?—A. It was iu the neighbor- 


hood of $2,300, I suppose. 


Q. And on that you had a percentage of 35 per cent.?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you make anything else out of the voyage than what you have 
mentioned ?—A. No. I owned one-half of the vessel. 

Q. Did the vessel make or lose money that year ?—A. She lost $150 
for the whole fishing season. We began fishing in April and we knocked 
off in the latter part of October. 

Q. Then you did something else besides fishing for mackerel ?—A. 
Yes. We went cod-fishing in the spring. 

Q. How did you do at. eod-fishing that year ?—A. We did very well. 

Q. Did you make or lose on the cod-fishing trip?—A. I do not think 
that we lost much. In fact, I do not think that we lost anything. 

(). Was the cod-fishing less or more profitable than the mackerel-fish- 
ing ?—A. I could not tell exactly. I suppose the vessel was about 
square when we came to the bay. 

Q. You were about square on the year’s cod-fishing 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And how was it at the end of the year?—A. One hundred and fifty 
dollars were sunk. 

Q. What was your share of the loss ?—A. One-half. 

Q. Was that making any allowance for interest or depreciation ?—A. 
No. 

Q. Was the vessel insured ?—A. Yes; but she could not pay her bills 
within $150. 

Q. You seem to have made quite as good catches of mackerel as the 
average for any one who has been here so many years?—A. We used to 
do about as well as the average, I guess. 

Q. Have you got rich on it?—A. O,no; I have not got much of any- 
thing. I own a house, and that is about all. The vessel has been run 
about out. 

Q. What do you mean by that ?—A. She has run until she has sunk 
what she is worth. : 

Q. Is the vessel lost?—A. Some years she sunk considerable, and 
other years she made something. 

Q. You are 55 years of age, and you have been fishing ever since you 
were a boy?—A. I began when I was ten years old, and have been 
at it steadily since I was Id. 

@. How much are you worth?—A. I havea house worth about $3,000, 
I suppose, and that is about all I have. I have no vessel now; that is 
how well I have done; and there are a good many as badly off as I am. 


* Q. Ifyou were going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to fish, should you 


regard the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore as im- 
portant to the success of your voyage ?—A. No, I should.not; because 
I have never fished there much. They-drive you off there a great deal. 
_ Q. You seem to have had licenses during two years; why did you 
take them out ?—A. Well, they did not cost much, and I thought they 


2366 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


might trouble me and drive me around. They drove us out of a harbor 
once. 

Q. What do you mean by this ?--A. They stopped us from going into 
the harbor. This was a good while ago, and I thought I would take out 
a license. It did not amount to much, and if I found anything inshore, 
I then had a right to catch fish there. 

Q. The first year you paid 50 cents a ton on 55 tons for your license; 
what did you pay the second year ?—A. I forget; but I think it was $1 
aton. I won’t, however, be certain about it. 

Q. Have you ever fished for mackerel on Georges Bank ?—A. O, yes. 

@. You have gone there on purpose to fish for mackerel ?--A. O, yes; 
and for a number of years. 

Q. Without going into the details of the voyages, will you state 
whether it is a good fishing ground ?—A. It is a good fishing ground. 
I have got a good many mackerel there. 

Q. You bave been cod-fishing a good deal, I notice ?—-A. Yes. 

Q. How have you supplied yourself with bait ?—A. We always got 
our bait home. During the first part of the season we would go to Cape 
Cod and the sound forit. Generally, after the first one or two trips, 
when the frozen herring were gone, we went over across to Cape Cod, 
to what is called the Shoals, and procured bait until it came our way, 
and we then baited during the rest of the year at home. 

Q. Have you ever got bait where you were fishing on the Banks ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. What kind of bait ?—A. Herring. ; 

Q. Have you ever been to Newfoundland for bait?—A. Yes; but not 
for fresh bait. I went there after frozen herring. 

Q. Did you buy or catch the herring ?—A. I bought them. 

Q. For bait for your own vessel ?—A. No; but a cargo. I took them 
home. 

Q. How often did you purchase them ?—A. I did so for a few years. 

-Q. Where did you go for them ?7—A. To Fortune Bay. 

Q. Did you go there prepared to fish for them 7?—A. No; and I never 
saw any one who did so, when I went there. It is now a number of years 
since I was there. 

Q. In how many Prince Edward Island harbors have you been ?—A. 
I have been in Georgetown, and Malpeque, and in Cascumpeque once, in 
1851. I went there for barrels. The man who fitted us out then had 
barrels there and he wanted us to go and take them. 

Q. Why did you go to Malpeque ?—A. .To make a harbor. I was never 
there a great deal. 

Q. How many times have you been fishing there ?—A. I was about 
there mostly all one year, | think, and I might have been in there four 
or five times. 

Q. How many times were you in Georgetown ?—A. I do not think I 
was there over two or three times. I was in Georgetown Harbor for the 
first time, I think, in 1874, save once. I was there in 1856 or 1857, and 
I do not think that I Was there again until 1874. 

Q. Are those harbors of such a kind that fishing-vessels in bad weather 
can easily enter them ?—A. No; those which are on the north side of the © 
island are not so. 

Q. Why not ?—A. Well, it is kind of shoal water about them, and it 
is generally pretty rough there when the wind is blowing on shore. 
When the wind is to the westward and off shore, they do well enough, 
but when the wind is blowing on shore, they are considerably rough. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2367 


Q. When the wind is off shore, there is no particular danger to be ex- 
perienced when entering them ?—A. No. . 

Q. Have you been in the habit of going to Port Hood?—A. Yes; I 
have been there a number of times. 

Q. At what season of the year?—A. Late in the fall, to make a har- 
bor; when we are going to the Magdalen Islands, we are sometimes 
there for ten days or a week; and in the fall, when we are down around 
that way, we generally spend the night in there. 

Q. When, in the autumn, do you generally get into the vicinity of Port 
Hood ?—A. We never get over there until along about the 10th or the 
middle of October. Some are there earlier. 

Q. Where, on the whole, has been your fishing ground ?—A. It has 
been at the Magdalen Islands. We went to Bank Orphan on our first 
trip some years. 

Q. Have you usually fished in company with the greater part of the 
Gloucester vessels ?—A. Well, yes. A good many vessels fished around 
the Magdalen Islands. Some days you will only see a few there when a 
large fleet is there, and some days you will see a good many there. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because they are all around the islands. The mack- 
erel are found all about them, and the vessels fish all around them. 

Q. Have you ever fished in the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. No; I was 
never there but once, and that was in 1874. 

Q. Did you go in to try for mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What was your luck ?—A. We never caught a mackerel. 

Q. Did you ever fish off Seven Islands ?—A. Yes; once. 

Q. When ?—A. In 1852, I think. 

Q. That was a good many years ago ?7—A. Yes. ‘ 

(). Did you catch any fish there ?—A. No; we got nothing there, and 
we did not stop long. : 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. What kind of a harbor is Port Hood ?—A. Well, it is a middling 
good harbor, though it is nothing extra. 

Q. Itis a pretty fair harbor ?—A. Yes. 

4% When you were there in the fall, were many of the fleet there ?— 

. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. I do not know, as I could not exactly say ; some- 
times 150 vessels and sometimes 60 would be there; but I do not think 
that I ever saw over 200 vessels there at one time. 

. Q. There were always from 60 to 200 in that harbor when you were 
in it?—A. Not always; but this would be the case a good many tim 
late in the fall. I was never there save late in the fall. 
Q. When you were then there you would always find in it a fleet more 
or less large ?—A. Yes. 
| Q. And you think the numbers varied from 60 to 150 and 200?—A. 
- Two hundred were the most I think I ever saw there at once; and a 
_ good many of them were English vessels, from Lunenburg and La Have. 

Q. These vessels were all engaged in fishing, I suppose ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And I believe you were there every fall 7—A. I was there almost 
every fall. | 

Q. It is one of the fishing-grounds well known to fishermen in the 
fall?—A. Yes; for those who fish that way; some fish the other way, 
down to the Magdalen Islands and half-way across between them 
and Cheticamp; and if the wind is to the eastward, they make Port 
Hood their harbor, as there is no other harbor in which one can run 
about there. 


2368 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. The shores of Cape Breton Island, from Port Hood to Cheticamp 
and Margaree, &c., are well known to all fishermen as good fishing- 
grounds in the fall?—A. Yes; spells of mackerel are found there. 

Q. And as a rule, the fleet go there some little time at any rate 7—A. 
Yes; some of the vessels go that way. 

Q. You were accustomed to go there every fall, for a greater or less 
time 7—A. We never fished at Margaree a great deal. 

Q. But you were at Port Hood or Cheticamp?—A. Almost every 
fall. We would be there a week, I suppose. 

‘Q. And off Sydney ?—A. No; I was never around Cape North. 

Q. But you were around the Cape Breton shore every fall ?—A. Yes; 
our vessels were there late in the fall. 

Q. And sometimes you were there for a week, and sometimes for 10 
days ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were good catches made there at these times ?—A. I never saw 
but one good catch made there and that was taken between Margaree 
and Cape Mabou. . 

Q. Is that on Cape Breton ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Between Margaree Island and the mainland a good catch was 
made ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were many vessels then there?—A. No; there were 25 or 30 sail. 

Q. What do you call a good catch as taken there ?—A. 60 or 70° 
barrels. 

Q. Apiece?—A. Yes; but all vessels do not catch alike. 

Q. Your judgment would be that each of these 25 or 30 vessels caught 
60 or 70 barrels ?—A. I do not think that all did so. I understood you 
to ask what I thought a good catch was. Some of them did not get 
more than 30 barrels. 

Q. Do you know what the vessels took at the time ?—A. O, yes. 

Q. What did they take ?—A. One vessel caught 70 barrels, and we 
got 50. 

Q. Would that be the general average ?—A. I could not tell. Wesaw 
them all catching fish around us, but vessels do not always fish alike. 
There is a good deal of difference between them. One might catch 100 
barrels, and another not one-half that. I have seen this happen often. 

Q. You understood that they made good catches ?—A. I know that 
another vessel, my brother’s, took 70 barrels. 

Q. Have you any doubt as to this being the average for the fleet ?— 
A. I do not think that it was; but I think they all got a large share. 

Q. Within what time did you take them ?—A. We got them all dur- 
ing one day. 

Q. What have you caught there every fall 7—A. I have obtained very 
few there, that fall excepted. 

Q. You went there nevertheless ?—A. Yes; but we got most of our 
stock at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Did the fleet also go there ?7—A. They went somewhere, but I do 
not know where. 

Q. I understand you to state that you do not know where the fleet 
went ?—A. I could not tell. I know that they left the Magdalen Islands, 
but I could not say whether they went to Margaree or Prince Edward 
Island. 

Q. But they either went to Margaree or Prince Edward Island ?—A. 
Of course ; when fishing, vessels go from one place to another, and itis — 
hard to tell where they go. q 

Q. I heard a witness state—I think it was vesterday—that the mack- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2369 


erel strike in on the Cape Breton shore when going down ?—A. They 
generally do so.' 

Q. And the vessels follow them ?—A. But it is not often that they 
stop more than a day or two. 

Q@. Did you take the 50 barrels close inshore ?—A. No; we were five 
or six miles outside of the range of Margaree Island, I should think, 
from the look of it. We were to the southwest of Margaree Island. 

‘Q. You were between Margaree Island and Mabou ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When was this ?—A. In 1864. 

Q. Would you undertake to swear at this length of time what dis- 
tance you were then from the shore ?—A. Well, I think it was what I 
have told you. . 

Q. You then had a right to fish inshore?—A. Yes; I think we were 
about five miles off shore. 

Q. Would you swear to this ?—A, I could not; we never measured it. 

Q. Can you positively state the distance ?—A. No; no farther than I 
have done to the best of my judgment. Generally, a man can tell two 
miles from five or six. 

Q. Ihave heard witnesses say that they could not tell three miles 
from five.—A. I do not know about that: but I should think they could. 

Q. You think that there is no difficulty in telling the distance from 
shore ?—A. O, yes. One could not tell it exactly, but I think a man 
ought to tell whether he was three or five miles off. 

Q. You think there is no difficulty about it?—A. I should not think 
80. 
Q. Is your memory very accurate ?—A. Well, sometimes it is, and 
sometimes I cannot remember some things. ; 

Q. What did you say you caught in 1874?—A. 315 barrels. 

Q. And that only ?—A. Yes; and we made one trip that year. 

Q. When did you go to the bay 7—A. In July. 

Q. Is your memory sufficiently clear on that point to state whether it 
was in June or July ?7—A. Yes; it was in July, after the 4th; it might 
have been on the 8th of that month. 

Q. You are reported in the return to which Mr. Foster called atten- 
tion, to have been in the Gut on June 25th ?—A. No; that is a mistake 
or a misstatement. 

Q. Where were you September 1st, 1874 ?—A. I do not know exactly; 
but I think that about that time we went to Canso. _ 

(J. Can you tell me how many barrels you had on board then ?—A. 
ere. Mikes, I think that we had somewhere about 270—260 or 270 
arrels. ” 

Q. You cannot remember the number exactly ?—A. No; not within 
10 or 15 barrels. 

Q. You landed a portion of them ?—A. Yes; 50 barrels. 

Q. Do you know David Murray, collector of customs at the port 
there ?—A. No. 

Q. How often have you been in Canso ?—A. I was there every year I 
was in the bay. ‘ 

(). And you do not know Mr. Murray ?—A. I suppose I may have seen 
him, but I could not tell him uow if I saw him. I suppose I have been 
in his office. 

' Q. Do you know the man ?—A. I know there is such a man. 

Q. Have you ever spoken to him?—A. I could not say that I have, 
bat I have spoken either to him or to hisclerk. I havebeen at his office. 

Q. Do you know him ?—A. I do not say that I do, but I have seen 
him or his clerk. I have been at his office. 


149 F 


2370 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What did you go there for ?—A. To get a permit to land mack- 
erel. 

Q. Were you accustomed to tell him what your catch was?—A. Yes, 
sometimes ; when he asked me I used to tell him. 

Q. Was he accustomed to ask you about it ?—A. I do not know that 
he was. 

Q. You gave voluntary information on the subject?—A. No; I did 
not tell without being asked. 

Q. If he did not ask you and if you did not givehim voluntary informa- 
tion, how is it you say you were accustomed to state what your catch 
was?—A. I told him it when he asked me about it, but I could not 
swear that he asked me about it. 

Q. Do you mean at any special time Don’t quibble about it.—A. 
No; I could not swear that Murray ever asked me what my catch was, 
and I do not swear whether I know the man. 

Q. Do you or do you not know the collector of Port Mulgrave, 
David Murray? Have you ever seen him IA. I do not know, bat I 
have been at his office. 

Q. Have you there seen a man re believed to be him ?—A. I do not 
know as I took notice. I went there fora permit; it was given, me and 
I went off. 

Q. Did you ever state at his office what your catch was?—A. I do 
not remember that I ever did so. 

Q. Did you state to me a few moments ago that you had done so?— 
A. I do not know as I did. 

Q. Do you recollect stating that you told him or his clerk what your 
catch was ?—A. I told you I did so if he asked me about it. 

Q. Did they ask you about it ?—A. I could not say; they may and 
they may not. I cannot recollect. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that your recollection is an absolute 
blank on that point; you do not remember stating your catch or whether 
‘they asked you about it ?—A. No; I do not. 

Q. Were you there on October 20, 1874?—A. No. 

Q. You were not there at Port Mulgrave 2—A. No. 

Q. Were you there September Ist, 1874 7—A. Well, I was only there 
that once. I do not know when it was, but I think it was somewhere 
in the first part of September. That*is the only time we were there, 
save when we came from home. We stopped at Pirate’s Cove, -two or 
three miles below Port Mulgrave. 

Q. Is that where Murray’s office is ?—A. No. 

Q. And you do not know whether you saw him or not ?— A. No. 

Q. But you may have seen him ?—A. I do not know the man. Icould 
not tell him if I saw him. 

Q. In this report to which your attention has been called, it is men- 
tioned that the Alferetta, a Gloucester vessel, landed fish there the Ist of 
September, and was there October 20th, 187 4, on the second trip with 
170 barrels.—A. That is not correct. 

Q. What was your total catch tbat year?—A. 315 barrels or there- 
abouts. 

Q. Mr. Murray reports it 400 barrels?—A. That is the way reports 
get carried round, repeated many times; and they thus make one have 
more fish than he caught. I think this is the case sometimes. 

Q. Were you more than once in the Gut of Canso that year?—A. We 
were there three times on our way up, and on our way home, and once + 
to land some fish. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. — 2371 


Q. Did you stop there when you were going home?—A. Yes; to take 
the 50 barrels on board. 

Q. In whose charge were they left?—A. In Mr. Hartley’s. 

Q. Did you inform him what your catch was ?—A. I do not recollect ; 
but most likely I did. He most always seemed to ask what it was. 

Q. And if you did so inform him, of course you told him the truth 7— 
A. Yes. I would tell him what we had. 

Q. You never fished in the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. No; save once, 
when we tried and failed. 

Q. Did you try near the shore there ?—A. We tried all over the bay. 

Q. Did you try there near the shore within the three-mile limit 7—A. 
Yes; I think we did. 

Q. When was this ?—A. It was a number of years ago. 

Q. During the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. Yes, I think so. 

Q. Was a portion of the fleet accustomed to resort to the Bay of Chal- 
eurs to fish ?—A. Only a very few vessels were in it when we were 
there. 

Q. Were the fleet accustomed to repair there for the purpose of fish- 
ing ?—A. I could not tell, I am sure, 

Q. Did you never hear that this was their custom 7—A. I have heard 
that some vessels went there. 

Q. That a portion of the fleet did so?—A. Some vessels—yes. 

Q. Did you hear that a portion of the fleet was accustomed to fish 
there —A. 1 do not know that I ever heard of more than 10 or 12 sail 
of our vessels being there at one time. 

Q. And if they were there, you do not know whether this was the 
case or not ?—A. Uf course; I only know what I have heard. 

Q. Did you never fish around Bonaventure ?—A. Yes, off and on. 

Q. But anywhere along the shore ?—A. No. 

Q. Have you fished about Seven Islands ?—A. Yes, once; but I did 
not catch anything. 

Q. You never fished there again ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know whether any portion of the fleet was accustomed to 
fish there at times?—A. There were not a great many vessels there 
then; perhaps there were 8 or 10. : 

Q. But during the year ?—A. I do not think so. 

Q. You know that some vessels go there?—-A. Well, some few do. 

Q. Did you ever fish around the shores of Prince Edward Island 7?— 
A. Yes, but very little. I have tried there off and on, at different times, 
and over across to East Point, Magdalen Islands, and then come right 
back to Malpeque. 

Q. Have you fished around East Point?—A. I have tried there. 

Q. Close in shore ?—A. I do not think that I was ever within the 
three-mile limit. 

Q. Are you positive about this?7—A. No. 

Q. You may have fished there within the three-mile limit?—A. Yes; 
but I could not say. 

Q. You were on the Alferetta in 1863?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you caught about 330 barrels each trip?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you catch any portion of the first trip in 1863 within three 
miles of Prince Edward Island ?—A. We never caught a fish in sight of 
Prince Edward Island. : 

Q. That year?—A. No; we came out of Souris and went straight to 
the Magdalen Islands; and we never left there until we started for 
home, in the latter part of August, I think. 


2372 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Do you know John F. Campion ?—A. Yes; he was with us that 
trip. 

Q. Do you know that he has been examined here?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you had his statement read to you ?—A. Yes, I have seen it 

Q. And you heard what he said about that first trip in the AI fer- 
eitta?—A. Yes. 

Q. He was asked— 


Q. What was your catch in the Alferetéa that year?—A. During the one trip that I was 
in her we caught 300 barrels. 

Q. Were they caught outside the three-mile limit or close inshore ?—A. Some were caught 
csi East Point, Margaree, and the balance around the island and the Magdalen Isl- 
ands. 

Q. What distance were you from the shore ?—A. ‘One-third of that trip was caught be- 
eos East Point and the Magdalen Islands, and the balance close to the shore of both 
isiands. 

A. That is not correct ; we never hove to in sight of the island. 

Q. Your memory differs from his on that point?—A. Well, I cannot 
help that. We went right straight to the Magdalen Islands, and we 
left there the latter part of August. 

Q. And you are equally sure that you did not catch any fish that 
year within the three-mile limit, as you are that you did not do so any 
other year ?—A., I am certain as to that year, because we were full of 
mackerel when we went home. 

Q. Do you mean to speak from your recollection as to that year, re- 
specting the distance you fished from the shore, as distinct from and bet- 
ter than for other years?—A. No; but I can tell when we catch fish 
at the Magdalen Islands—when we get whole fares there. 

Q. You are just as sure respecting other years as this year?—A. I 
do not know about other years when we get fish at different places; 
but when I catch a whole trip at a certain place, I recollect that pretty 
well. 

Q. You did not catch that whole trip at the Magdalen Islands ?— 
A. Yes, we did. 

Q. Where did you catch the secend trip that year?—A. Mostly at 
the Magdalen Islands, and between them and Margaree. 

Q. Did you take any portion of it at Margaree ?—A. No; but the 
last day we fished after we left Magdalen Islands, we were just in sight 
of Margaree. 

Q. You do not appear to have fished, except on one occasion, within 
three miles of the shore ?—A. I never caught any fish inshore to amount 
to anything. 

Q. In 1866 you took out a license?—A. Yes. 

Q. You had fished in the bay for 14 years previously, and though you 
had never caught any fish inshore, you deemed it necessary to take out a 
license then ?—A. I thought the Hcense was cheap, and I had heard a 
good deal about vessels being driven round, and so I thought I would 
take one. 

Q. But you did not catch any fish that year within the three-mile 
limit?—A. I donot know that we did, save at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. The price of the licenses doubled the next year, and still you took 
out another. What explanation have you to make as to your motives 
for doing so?—A. If we found mackerel anywhere inshore, we could 
have fished there. 

Q. And still during sixteen years you had never taken any fish 
within three miles of the shore?—A. Yes; but 1 might not have got 
fish at the Magdalen Islands that year, and then I could have gone 
somewhere else. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2373" 


Q. Had you an impression that the fishery would fail that year at 
the Magdalen Islands ?—A. No; the license did not costa great deal. I 
only paid half of it, and I thought it best to be sure, and be on the safe 
side. 

Q. Then the possible failure of the fishing at the Magdalen Islands 
had nothing to do with your motives in doing so? You must have had 
some other motives ?—A. We then had a right to go anywhere we had 
a mind to. ; 

Q. When you had the license ?—A. Of course. 

Q. But why did you do so, when for 16 years you had never caught 
any fish there ?—A. We did not know what we would do. 

Q. Had you heard from others that the fleet were accustomed to take 
the fish inshore ?—A. Well, no; I do not know as I ever heard of any- 
body catching a great many fish within the three-mile limit; but I know 
the fish were caught 5, 6, 7, and 8 miles off sliore, and the like of that. 

Q. Or 4 miles off?—A. Yes; I suppose so; but I cannot say what 
others have done. ; 

Q. You have heard of the fish- being taken within 4 miles of the 
coast ?—A. I suppose that some few. have been caught there. 

Q. Have you so heard {—A. I could not say. When talking about 
these matters, fishermen do not state any regular distance. A man does 
not say he caught his fish 4 or 3 miles off shore, but that he fished off 
East Point or Malpeque, or wherever he may have been. They generally 
do not state the distance. 

Q. You have heard that the fleet fished off East Point, and Malpeque, 
and Margaree, without reference to distance 7—A. Well, I suppose that 
off Margaree mackerel have been taken inshore; more are so caught 
there than elsewhere. 

Q. Did you hear from the captains in the fleet that they were accus- 
tomed to take fish off the places I have named?—A. Yes. I knew that 
they do take them there. 

Q. Did you hear that this was their custom ?—A. I do not know that 
any special man came and told me he did so, but if I asked a man where 
he caught his mackerel, he would say at such a place, wherever it might 


Q. Did you ever hear from the captains in the fleet that they took 
their mackerel at East Point, Malpeque, or Margaree?—A. Well, I 
have heard of mackerel being caught at all those 3 places, but never 
heard of them having been taken at any regular distance off shore that 
I know of. 

Q. But what you heard from these captains had nothing to do with 
your taking out licenses?—A. Well, I do not know as it did. Whena 
man comes to the bay for a trip of mackerel if he does not find them at 
- one place he generally goes to another; and if you have a license you 
-. €an go all round. 

. Q. You have stated that you did not do that?—A. I did not because 
I found mackerel somewhere else. 
Q. Therefore you did not want licenses?—A. We did not know what 
_ we were going to do when we took them out. 

. But you had had an experience of sixteen years there?—A. Yes; 
but I did not know what would happen sixteen years to come. There 
is a good deal of difference between the two. . 

Q. Have you heard that of late years the mackerel have changed 
their habits somewhat, and are found nearer the shore than used to be 
the case?—A. Yes; I have heard of them being caught by boats off 
Prince Edward Island, but never so nigh the shore as is now represented. 


2374 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I have been up and down the island, and I have seen boats fishing four 
mniles off and three miles off and outside, I think. 

Q. When was this?—A. I do not know that it was in any particular 
year, but it was when I was up the island around Malpeque and came 
down by East Point. 

Q. Do you know the distance from the shore at which mackerel are 
now taken off Prince Edward Island ?—A. No. I have not been in the 
bay since 1874. 

Q. Did your experience, then, inform you, or had you heard it from 
others, that the habits of the mackerel had somewhat changed, and 
that they were now found and taken closer inshore than they used to 
be?—A. No; I do not know as this was the case. 

Q. You never heard of it ?—A. I do not think that I did. 

Q. But you stated just now that you had heard something about it ? 
—A. I do not recollect saying so. 

Q. You said that the boats were now taking fish inshore 7—A. I have 
heard of that since I came down here. 

Q. But never previously ?—A. No; I do not know as I ever did. 

Q. You said you have lost a good deal of money on some of these 
trips ?—A. No, not a great deal; but I have not made much. 

Q. But you have made money AN. I have a house, aad that is all. 

Q. Were you a member of a firm ?—A. No. 

Q. You were merely a fisherman ?—A. Yes. 

Q. For what firm did you go out ?—A. I have fished for a number of 
firms; the last one was that of Rowe & Jordan. 

Q. Are you aware whether these firms made money or not ?—A. Well, 
I could not say; I suppose that some do, and that some do not—on the 
fish after they are landed. I do not think that the vessels make much 
money, but I do not know. We used to get an average stock. 

Q. What would be a fair charter a month for a vessel of 75 tons?—A. 
I oral not tell you. 
~ Q. Did you never charter one ?—A. No; I never heard of a vessel 
having been chartered at any place for ten or twelve years; but this 
used to be done. 

Q. Do you not know what a fair ordinary charter for a vessel of that 
size is?—A. It would be about $200 I suppose for a large vessel. 

Q. But for a vessel of 75 tons ?—A. A vessel of small size for the fish- 
ing season of perhaps nine months, would cost, I suppose, about $100 
a month; but I do not know for certain what would be the charge. I 
have not known any vessels to be chartered for a good many years. 

Q. Did you go to McGuire’s or Hartley’s when you went to Cape Bre- . 
ton in 1874 ?—A. I went to Hartley’s. 

Q. You are quite sure about that?—A. We always fitted out there ; 
we never fitted out at any other place. 

Q. Had you during the seasons you were fishing, or say in 1874, any 
British fishermen with you—Cape Breton men, Nova Scotians, or Prince 
Edward Islanders, besides Americans ?—A. I do not know that we had 
any in 1874. 

Q. Do you remember whether you had or not?—A. No; I do not re- 
member all the names of the crew. 

Q. In 1863, when Campion was with you, bad you any other colonial 
fishermen with you?—A. We had one man who belonged to the island. 

Q. Who was he ?—A. He lived at Gloucester then, and his name was 
Frank Chivari, think. 

Q. It was not Simon Chivari ?—A. He went by the name of Frank. 

Q. Do you remember any other colonial fishermen who were with you 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2375 


during any of the years when you were fishing ?—A. No; I do not know 
as Ido. We had one or two one year, but I do not know as I could 
recollect their names. 

Q. I would like you to do it if you can.—A. We had one man named 
Jim Rose, I think. 

Q. Where was he from ?—-A. Prince Edward Island. I think that 
was his name. 

Q. What year was this ?—A. I could not tell you exactly. It was 
eight or nine years ago, I think. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. You said you had been to Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, for frozen 
herring 7—A. Yes; that was 12 or 13 years ago. 

Q. You have not been there since ?—A. No. 

Q. Are you aware whether the herring are now shipped from there in 
bulk or in barrels 7—A. We took them in bulk. 

Q. And frozen herring are invariably shipped in bulk ?—Yes. I never 
knew them to be shipped in any other way. 


By Mr. Foster : 


Q. You told Mr. Davies you once saw as many as 200 vessels in Port 
Hood ?—A. Yes; a good many English vessels were in the fleet at the 
time. 

Q. What year was this ?7—A. Ido not knowas I could tell the year ex- 
actly. I suppose it was somewhere about nine or ten years ago; it was 
at the time of a heavy breeze, I remember. 

Q. Can you tell how many of these vessels were British 7—A. O, well, 
I suppose that nearly one-half of them were so; I should think that 
these vessels numbered 80 or 90 sail sure. 

Q. They were not all fishing vessels, were they 7—A. Yes; some were 
cod-fishers and a good many mackerel-fishers. 

Q. When you were at Port Hood in 1874, how many American vessels 
were there there then ?—A. The fleet was not very large that year. 

Q. How many did it number 7—A. I could not exactly tell; sometimes 
a greater and sometimes a lesser number was there ; perhaps there were 
40 sail. 

Q. Were you at Port Mulgrave June 25, 1874?—A. No; we were then 
at home. 

Q. When did you leave home?—A. After the 4th of July. We always 
left home after this date, one year excepted, and that was in 1856, to the 
best of my knowledge. We then went after poor mackerel. 

Q. Could the Alferetta have been there on the 25th of June, 1854 ?— 
A. No; I do not think so. 

Q. Do you only think not?—A. No. I owned half of her, and we 
were on George’s Bank at that date. We always go there up to the 4th 
of July. 

By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. Did you call at Hartley’s on the way through ?—A. I think that 
we did. 

By Mr. Foster: 

Q. oo did not leave Gloucester that year until after the 4th of July? 
—A. No. ‘ 

Q. How do you know that you were not there on the 20th of October? 
Where were you then ?—A. Inthe bay. Wemight have been going out 
: — date. We generally leave the bay about the 20th or the 25th of 

ctober. 


2376 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How do you know that you did not stop at Port Mulgrave on your 
way out?—A. Because we never stop there; we never did so in my life. 

Q. Did you stop at Pirate’s Cove?—-A. Yes; we always do stop there. 

Q. Were you in Pirate’s Cove on the 20th of October, 1874?—A. We 
might have been. We generally go out the 20th or the 25th of that month, 
though some vessels stay a little later. 

Q. You were in the bay somewhere on that 20th of October 7?—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. You are mistaken about Port Mulgrave; all the part you mention 
is Mulgrave?—A. I do not know but that it is. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Where is the place at which Murray’s office was?—A. It was at 
the place we call Mulgrave. 

Q. The first date, 25th of June, cannot be right?—A. No. 

Q. But on the 20th of October you may have been at Pirate’s Cove?— 
A. I could not say that, but we might have then been going out of the 
bay. 

Q. What did you stop there for that year?—-A. We had some mack- 
erel to take in; some 50 barrels. 

Q. And what else had you to do there ?—A. We put a few empties 
ashore to make room for the others, and took in a little wood, water, 
&e. 

Q. How many empty barrels did you remove ?—A. As many as we 
had landed. 

Q. Can there be any mistake at all about the number of mackerel ?— 
A. No, Ido not think it. There cannot be any mistake. We did not 
make but one trip that year, and we did not have a full trip. I am sure 
of that. 

Q. As to John F. Campion, I notice on the 33d page of the evidence, 
British side, that he was examined and answered as follows: . 

Q. This was in the year 1865?—A. I was then in the Alferetta still; her captain was 
named Cash. 

Who was then captain of the Alferetta ?—A. I was her skipper every 
year since she was built. : 

Q. Were you part owner of her in 1865?—A. Yes, and ever since she 
was four months old up to last fall. 

Q. Was Campion with you in 1865?—A. No. He was never with us 
save on one, trip. 

Q. Is there a Gloucester captain named Cash ?—A. Yes, but I could 
not say whether he was fishing that year. I only know one captain of 
that name. f 

Q. In 1863 Campion was with you on one trip ?—A. Yes, it was on the 
first trip. 

Q. Was it the first trip of the year ?—A. It was the first mackerel 
voyage. 

Q. Was he with you cod-fishing ?—A. He went on the first trip. We 
shipped him at the Island after we went down there. 

Q. He says you shipped him at Gloucester?—A. We did not do so; 
he shipped at the island. 

Q. His evidence is as follows on this point: 

Q. And the next year, 1863 ?—A. I was also then in the fishing business. 

Q. In what vessel 7A. The schooner Alferetta, Captain Rowe. 

Q. Did you begin etd that ha ’—A. Yes; we started in July. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. We came to the Bay of the St. Lawrence. 

Q. Was she a Gloucester schooner ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2377 


Q. Did you go that season to the Southern fishing grounds along the American coast ?— 

. No. I was in Gloucester when the vessel went out there, but I did not go. 

Q. Why ?—A. Simply because I did not think there was any money in the transaction. I 
remained idle, as did many others at the time that year. I had never any faith in the South- 
ern fisheries, because I saw that a great many people who went there did not make much. 

Q. A good many others were idle as well as yourself ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You waited until fishing commenced in the Bay of St. Lawrence 7—A. Yes. 


His evidence continues: 


Q. One-third were caught altogether outside the limits?—A. Yes. We went home with 
ear trip. I think it was in August we returned to Gloucester. We caught about 300 bar- 
Tels. 

Q. He means packed, I suppose; that was about the number we 
packed. He shipped with us on that trip at Souris. 

Q. Are you positive about that?—A. We went to the bay one hand 
short; men were not very plenty at Gloucester. Vessels often have to 
go that way. The cook’s wife wanted to go down, and we accommo- 
dated her; and then when we went in this man wanted to go and we 
shipped him. 

By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Did I understand you to say you had licenses for 3 years?—A. No; 
but for 2 ——, 1866 and 1867. 

Q. In 1866, 50 cents a ton was charged ?—A. I think so. 

(). And the next year $1?—A. Yes; and I think the price was raised 
the third year to $2, but we did not take out any that year, and that is 
the reason why vessels did not then purchase them, I think. 

Q. I should like you to state more fully what considerations you had 
in addition to those you have mentioned, if there were any, for taking 
out licenses.—A. Well, I do not think there were any others. hen 
we had a license we could go any where without being bothered, and 
this might have been the case 4, 5, and 6 miles off shore. 

Q. The sense of being secure whenever you went in the bay was your 
motive, or part of it?—A. Yes; I suppose so. I have heard of vessels 
having been sometimes so bothered, but this was never the case with 
me save once. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. During the 23 years you fished in the bay were you ever iuter- 
rupted by the cutters?—A. Yes; once. 

Q. Where were you then?—A. Going to Gaspe; this was in 1852 or 


1853; I would not be certain about the year. 


@. You were then within the limits?—A. We were not fishing; we 
were going to a harbor in company with some 25 vessels. 
Q. Did they board you?—A. Yes; every vessel was boarded. 
Q. From 1852 to 1866 you were never interfered with by the cutters? 
—A. No. 
By Mr. Foster : 


Q. Explain what happened at the time you were boarded off Gaspé.— 
A. It looked stormy and quite a fresh breeze was blowing when we 
were working up there. Most of the fleet were there, and the men on 
a steamer had boarded them and forbidden them to goin; and when 
we got there they boarded us and did the same thing. This occurred 
about 10 o’clock in the forenoon, and we staid round till late in the 
afternoon ; it may have been 4 o’clock when they told us that we could 
go in, and we did so. 

By Mr. Weatherbe : 


_Q. Give the name of the captain of that cutter.—A. I could not tell 


2378 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 


either his name or the steamer’s name. I forget them now; itis so long 
ago, and I do not know that I knew them at the time. 


No. 35. 


. Moses Tarr, of Gloucester, Massachusetts, fish-merchant and fisher- 
man, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn 
and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot: 

Question. You are a native of Gloucester ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. State to the Commissioners what your business and occupation 
have been in Gloucester; what positions you have held, and the char- 
acter of the experience you have had.—A. I commenced to go a fishing 
when a boy. I worked on a farm, aud afterwards, early in life, [ fished 
some. I have made mercantile voyages, and have, subsequent to that 
time, been in a commercial and fishing business, owning and fitting a 
large number of vessels, and I have held under two or three adminis- 
trations office under the General Government. I have been president 
of a Gloucester Mutual Fire Insurance Company for several years, and 
was, during our rebellion, four or five years doing business at Charlotte- 
town, Prince Edward Island. I have done most of the different classes 
of business for New England men. 

Q. So that in various capacities, partially in the custom-house, par- 
tially as president of an insurance company, partly as fisherman, and 
partly as fish-merchant you have had a large and full experience of the 
Gloucester fisheries 7?—A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Now, with regard to the mackerel-fishing of Gloucester, has it in- 
creased or declined in the course of your experience 7?—A. It has, in the 
course of my experieuce, done both. In my first knowledge of it our 
vessels were small and the catch quite small, and it grew to be an im- 
portant business subsequent to 1833, 1834, and 1835. About our earliest 
fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I should say, for mackerel was 
from 1832 to 1834. I don’t remember the date of the first catching of 
mackerel in the bay. I was in 1832 there myself as a youngster, for 
codfish. I don’t remember knowing anything about any mackerel in the 
bay or mackerel-fishing at that time, or previous to that time. 

Q. Then it grew up from that time 7—A. The mackerel fishery in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence grew up from about that time. That was the first. 
We commenced by a vessel or two at a time. Perhaps the two first 
years they didn’t catch but a few hundred barrels, or a few thousand 
perhaps, and it grew from that time up to eighteen hundred and some 
of the earliest years of forty, forty-one, and forty-two. It afterward 
declined and nearly failed out. I had a vessel that came in, after being 
there for the whole season, with as low as 30 or 60 barrels. I have 
known the mackerel to be very plenty on our coast for a series of years 
and then to run down, and almost no fish; only 100 barrels would be an 
ordinary fair catch for the season. 

Q. Now, what, according to your recollection and knowledge of the 
Gloucester business, was the fleet employed in the mackerel fishery in 
the gulf when it was at its highest ?—A. I should think it was at its 
highest during the rebellion. 

Q. What was the number of the fleet employed then ?—A. I should 
think we had over two hundred vessels. 

Q. What is it now in the gulf from Gloucester ?—A. We had when I 
came away vessels that were considered to have gone there 68. 

Q. When you say that the number of vessels employed in the gulf 


| 
| 
| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2379 


was larger during the rebellion, and that the fishing of mackerel was 
at its height, must there not have been some exceptional demand for 
mackerel? Was there not an exceptional demand arising from the de- 
mand for the Army ?—A. Yes; everything ran high. But I think we had 
had a larger number of vessels there before, say in 749, ’52, or 753, but 
not so much tonnage. 

Q. Then, if I understand you, within the last series of years the 
mackerel fishery of Gloucester has declined rather than increased 7—A. 
It has declined; yes. ape 

Q. Now, has the mackerel fishery of Gloucester declined as compared 
with its cod-fishery ; so far as the industry of Gloucester as a fishing- 
port is concerned, what is the relation of the mackerel to the cod fish- 
ery?—A. Well, I should think the relative importance of the two classes 
of business, if I understand you aright, would be seventy-five per cent. 
codfish to twenty-five per cent. mackerel. 

Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Are you asking him generally ? ‘ 

Mr. TrEscot. I am asking him as to the relations that the two in- 
dustries bear to each other in Gloucester. He says 75 per cent. codfish 
and 25 mackerel. : 

Sir ALEXANDER GALT. That is both on the American coast and in 
the gulf? Rye 

Mr. TRESCOT. Yes. 

Q. Do you know what is the relation of the cod fishery to the mack- 
erel fishery this year?—A. Well, I should think it was 90 per cent. 

Q. Do you know what the relative values of the cod fishery and the 
mackerel fishery were last year in Gloucester ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Now, from your experience in the various capacities in which you 
have done business in Gloucester, as fisherman, as fish merchant, as 
president of an insurance company, as being in the custom-house, what 
would you suppose would be the profit of fishing in Gloucester; is it 


‘large or small ?—A. Small. 


Q. What is it derived from, the fishing or the handling of the fish?— 
A. The handling of the fish. The earnings of the fishermen are very 
small for a family to live on in Gloucester, as everywhere else. They 
labor ten months in the year in Gloucester, and I think that the aver- 
age earnings of fishermen would be considered good when they averaged 
$300 apiece. 

Q. Then, I understand that the profit of the fisheries in Gloucester, 
as you understand the industry of the town, is a mercantile profit and 


‘not a fishing profit ?—A. It isa mercantile profit. The fish are brought 


in. When the vessel arrives at the wharf they are purchased with a 
fair competition, there being 40 or 50 purchasers, and the crews are 
paid off as soon as the fish are weighed out, and the fish then become a 
mercantile rather than a fishing interest. 

Q. Now, with your experience of fishing and what you have seen and 
known, have you ever been able to form an opinion as to the gulf fish- 
eries ; that is, as to what per cent. of those caught there are caught in 
deep water and what per cent. within three miles ?—A. I have had some 
acquaintance with it by my business, and being in the bay fishing for 
mackerel myself two years, and knowing those who have been. 

Q. What would you say was the percentage ?—A. Well, very small. 
If I had to set it down, [ should say there was 15 per cent. caught 
within the three-mile limit. 

Q. You referred to the fact, as 1 understood, that you had been living 


at Prince Edward Island four years?—A. I did. Well, I went home, 


perhaps, twice a year. 


2380 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. When you lived at Charlottetown, what were you doing ?—A. My 
main business was the purchasing of produce. The purchasing of oats 
was the main business, and as incidental to the business I have shipped 
10,000 to 20,000 bushels of potatoes, and what fish I dealt in, that is, 
mackerel, not codfish. I competed with two or three others for them. 

Q. Can you give me the extent of your purchase of fish in any year ?— 
A. My purchases of mackerel were small. There was a Mr. Hall and one 
or two other parties there who owned and were running boats themselves, 
and their fish came to them. What fish I bought were such as the 
farmers and fishermen living on the north side of the island caught and 
brought into market without regard to those places that had stations. 
I could not say that I bought more than 200, or 300, or 400 barrels 
while I was living at Charlottetown. 

Q. Are you familiar with the habits and ways of the boat-fishermen 
on the island ?—A. Yes; I have been invited out there to give an opin- 
ion in relation to the manner of their curing their fish. They were pre- 
mature in the business, and didn’t understand the business as we did. 
I used to go out to Rastico, to Malpeque, to Souris, and across the island 
to Bouche, I believe it is, and those places. I used to see there, and I 
understand the manner of their fishing. 

Q. Now, with regard to that boat-fishing, with your knowledge of it 
in your four years’ residence there and purchasing of fish from those 
people, can you form any idea from what they have told you, or what 
you saw, as to the distance at which they caught fish? How did they 
carry on that fishery, when did they go out, how far did they go, and 
when did they come in?—A. The boats there are manned, except the 
fishermen’s and farmers’ boats, by three, and perhaps some smaller ones 
by two, and up to four men. They go about daylight in the morning; 
between that and sunrise. The distance from the shore depends entirely 
upou where they find mackerel or codfish such as they are fishing for, 
and they are not likely to catch them within two miles—seldom within 
that. Two miles is a very short distance from the land. Sometimes 
they are inside of that, undoubtedly, and from that they go to three, 
four, five, six, and seven miles, and exceptionally beyond that. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. When did you say you were living in Prince Edward Island?—A. 
From the fall of 1861 to the fall of 1866. 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Q. And about the character of this fish—you have dealt more or less 
in them all during that time; how did you find then?—A. Well, the 
mackerel-fishing commences its course about the 10th or 20th of June. 
That would be my judgment. The earliest fish are seldom caught before 
the 20th of June. Then the mackerel are poor and are like all other 
poor mackerel, even if taken care of they are No.3. They increase 
from that and become No. 2, and when you get along to the middle or 
the 10th of August the mackerel generally, in seasons of good fishing, 
are then very handsome fair mackerel. But no one can testify what the 
mackerel will be next year through the season by what it is this year. 

Q. What was the preparation of the fish by these people from whom 
you bought? How did it compare with the preparation by thorough 
mackerel fishers?—A. Well, we should not sell any of them that time 
for a fancy article. They were put ashore in the little barns and places 
where they kept them and many of them were careless with them, and 
would be a week, perhaps, filling a barrel. While they were waiting 


Ka 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2381 


some of them would be injured. But some that were acquainted with 
the business cured them comfortably well. 

Q. Can you give me any idea of the amount of fish caught around 
the shores of Prince Edward Island?—A. Well, I think the year I was 
there they would range from 4,000 to 7,000 barrels—not exceeding 7,000 
barrels, maybe. 

Q. The shore fisheries|—A. Yes; the island fisheries. 

Q. These fish were bought up by the merchants who dealt in fish and 
were exported 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Who bought most largely ?—A. Mr. Hall and Mr. Carvell—Mr. 
Hall, I think, most largely. 

Q. What proportion of them did Mr. Hall get?—A. I suppose he got 
nearly half. The rest were distributed among such as came into com- 
petition for them. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. When did you leave the island; ten years ago?—A. I left the 
island—well, I left my business there in the spring of 1866. 

«. You have resided in the States since that ?—A. I have always re- 
sided in the States; my residence in the island was only a temporary 
home for the season. 

Q. How many years were you doing business there?—A. From 1861— 
the fall of 1861—until 1865. 

Q. Have you read over the evidence with regard to the boat fishery 
that has been given before the Commission ?—A. No, I haven’t read any 
testimony. 

Q. I presume you know most of the men residing in Rustico ?—J am 
somewhat familiar with them. 

Q. Do you know Alexander McNeil ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Churchill ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And Marshall ?—A. Yes. 

Q. These are all respectable men ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Men of truth ?—A. Yes; I don’t know anything to the contrary, as. 
far as I know. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. You spoke of the commencement of the mackerel fishery in the bay 
as being about 1830 ?—A. I think I said 1832 or 1833. 

Q. I understood you to say it declined about 1841 ?7—A. Yes, it fell off, 
I think, about 1841. 
_ Q. Then it increased again until the time of the war ?—A. No, not en- 
tirely until the time of the war. It fell off again after that, but we were 
doing as well in 1852,’3,’4 again; that would be my remembrance. 
But I think we got as many mackerel in the gulf in the few years of the 
war as any other time. 
_ Q. Now again it has fallen off, I understand you to say ?—A. Entirely; 
it ‘wa almost entirely fallen off as far as any profitable business is con- 
cerned. 

Q. You said there were only 68 vessels this year?—A. Yes. 

Q. Has it declined periodically on the American coast also ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I wanted to ask you just this, whether the fishing is good at the 
same time in your observation on the American coast and in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence, or whether it fluctuates and is good on your coast and bad 


inthe gulf in the same year and vice versa ?—A. I don’t think there 


could be a distinct line drawn there, but I think it is sometimes the case 
that it resolves itself into that in a measure. 


Q. It is occasionally good on the American coast and occasionally in 


2382 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the gulf, but not usually good on both coasts at the same time ?—A. I 
have known it to be good on both coasts, but when we can find it good 
at home we should rather fish there. 

Q. It has not been very good this year ?—A. No, it is not. 


By Mr. Trescot: 

Q. How does the fishing on the coast compare with the fishing in the 
gulf?—A. With the same kind of fishing, do you mean ? 

Q. No; but with the kind of fishing that is practiced, which is seine 
fishing altogether. How does the seine- fishing on the coast compare with 
hand-line fishing in the gulf? Is it or is it not cheaper ?—A. With the 
same quantity of fish taken, we can do it a good deal cheaper at home. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 

Q. Generally speaking, it is cheaper fishing ?—A. Yes; it is cheaper 
at home, because at home we can catch 100 barrels to-day and pack them 
to-morrow. 

Q. You are only speaking now of the years when it is prosperous on 
your coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You are not speaking of an average of, say, 10 or lb years? Take 
the most prosperous fishing on your coast and the most prosperous 
years in the gulf, there is more to be made in the gulf-fishing 7—A. No, 
sir; not with the same class of fishing. 

Q. I suppose you didn’t make up any estimate ?—A. No; but I have 
it in my mind and in my books. : 

Q. Had you been in the business of mackerel-fishing on your own 
coast before you came into the gulf ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you carry it on yet ?—A. No; I gave it up altogether. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. When you speak of 15 per cent. of the mackerel being caught in- 
shore, do you embrace in that the mackerel caught by the boats 7—A. 
No; that has nothing to do with the provincial fishermen. I speak of 
our catch. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 
Q. You commenced in 1861 down there in Charlottetown 7—A. Yes; 
the first business I did there was in the fall of 1861. 
Q. You had an establishment at Cascumpec ?—A. No. 


No. 36. 


BENJAMIN ASHBY, of Noank, Connecticut, fisherman, called on be- 
half of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. Noank is situated to the eastward of New London f—An- 
swer. Yes, about seven miles from New London. 

Q. It is between New London and Stonington ?—A. Yes, about mid- 
way. 

Q. Are you now attached to the United States schooner Speedwell ?— 
A. No, I am not, 

Q. How many years had you been fishing ?—A. Forty-four this last 
April. 

Q. How old were you when you began 7—A. Nine years old. 

Q. You are Benjamin Ashby, junior. Your father is living, and a fish- 
a 1—A. He is living, but he is too big to bea fisherman; he has 

nD. , 


i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2383 


Q. Now, when did you first go in charge ofa vessel 7—A. I had charge 
of a vessel thirty-three years. 

Q. You took charge of a vessel 32 years ago?—A. Yes. 

Q. That was in 1845, was it?—A. Before that. I had a vessel built 
in 1843, and I[ had had charge of a vessel then two or three years. 

Q. Did you sail out of Stonington ?—A. I sailed out of Noank, Con- 
necticut, every time. I never failed to go out of the port, and always 
from the same custom-house too. 

Q. Now, in what kind of fishing have you been engaged during this 
long period ?—A. Halibut-fishing. 

Q. Substantially that has been exclusively your occupation ?—A, 
That has been all my business up till the last two or three years, until 
I gave up the business, and gave it into somebody else’s hands. 

Q. Where have you caught your halibut ?—A. The majority of them 
on Nantucket shoals. 

Q. What other places ?—A. Upon the Georges, in May and June and 
part of July; and for seven years, two trips a year, 1 have been over 
on to Brown’s Bank. I have been in sight of Seal Island twice, and 
Cape Sable two or three times. 

Q. With those exceptions, it has been on the Georges and Nantucket 
shoals?—A. What we call the Southwest Georges. _ 

Q. Those are nearer ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the course of the halibut business—when do you leave 
port, for instance ?—A. We leave about the middle of March. 

Q. Then you go first to the Southwest George’s ?— A. Southeast from 
Nantucket shoals. 

Q. How long do you usually fish there?—A. Till the 1st of May. 

Q. Then after the 1st of May you go to the George’s?—A. Yes, sir; 
we stay until July. The last of July we are on the northeast part of the 
George’s. 

Q. Then where ?—A. For the last seven years I have gone across to 
LaHave and to Brown’s. 

Q. Before the last seven years where did you go in the autumn ?—A, 
We used to quit. I didn’t know anything about coming over to this 
shore at all for halibut. 

Q. How is the halibut business carried on now from the places in that 
region ?—A. It is not carried on at all from Noank, because there is only 
one vessel fishes at all, and she has only been one trip this season. This 
same vessel was to Mobile all winter. 

Q. These halibut you carry fresh to market?—A. Yes, all fresh to 
New York. © 

Q. Your vessels are smacks, are they?—-A. Yes, with wells in them. 

‘Q. About how often do you run into New York?—A. About once a 
month. One trip a month is about the biggest we can do. 
Q. What kind of bait do you use?—A. I don’t know how to answer 

you—whether to say menhaden, hardheads, pogies, or what. 

Q. You mean the same thing, do you?—A. Yes; it is pogies or men- 
haden. I suppose you all understand it. It is one kind of fish alto- 
gether, but has a good many names. 

Q. I want you to state to the Commission how long you keep that bait 
in‘ice. You have a special way of icing it, haven’t you? Now, how 
long are you able to keep it in the way you prepare it for use 7—A. Well, 
do you want me to plan out an ice-house ? 

Q. No; how long can you use it iced in the way you ice it ?—A. Well, 


the way i have put it up to preserve it I have fished with it when it has 


2384 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


stood in ice 33 days, and have caught fish with it just as well as when 
we first commenced to fish with it. 

Q. Then you are able, with iced bait, to go out on those shoals of Nan- 
tucket and the George’s catching until you go back to New York ordina- 
rily. You required no fresh supply ?—A. We never pretend to make 
any fresh supply. 

Q. You never did all these 40 years ?—A. No. 

Q. Now, tell these gentlemen how you prepare that bait to keep it so 
well.—A. I have an ice-house. The ice is cut 22 inches square in our 
State the way we take itin. We stow two cakes in breadth and three 
in length in the house, whether it is 12 inches thick or 20 inches thick. 
We leave a whole tier in the bottom. Then we take these pogies and 
put them four inches thick; then about the same thickness of fine ice, 
as fine as we can pound it—snow would be better. We put the same 
thickness of ice that we have of fish. Then we put another tier of fish, 
and then some ice again, till we stow from 7,000 to 10,000 of these fish 
right in one house. Then we fill all round the sides and all over the 
top with the fine ice, and then cover it with canvass to keep it. I have 
fished with it when it has been 33 days, and it has been good bait to 
fish with. 

Q. Now you have a floor of cakes of ice?—A. Yes, we call them in 
our vessels bed-rooms. 

Q. What is the depth of pogies you put on?—A. About four inches. 

Q. Then four inches of fine ice?—A. Yes. 

Q. Ground up?—A. We pound it as fine as we can with the axe: we 
have no mills. 

Q. Then four inches of ice, then pogies, then ice again?—A. Yes, we 
fill it full. 

Q. What is the advantage of that mode of preparing the ice?7—A. It 
is all frozen solid and good. The top of the ice, when it gets frozen, 
bears its own weight, and it is not on the fish. It forms a kind of a 
crust upon the fish, and there is no air gets through it, I suppose, and 
it does not make any weight on the fish underneath. 

Q. In case there is any melting, what is the effect on the bait?—A. 
When it begins to melt and the crust breaks away the fish begin to decay. 

Q. You avert that or prolong the period by your mode?—A. Yes. 

Q. If the water forms there does it draw up ?—A. No, it goes down. 
the sides. We have it stowed so that the water that forms goes each 
side of this house. 

Q. It runs off?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is your method of preserving this fish practiced in any other place 
than your region of New London and Noank ?—A. 1 am not acquainted. 
I have seen Cape Ann fishermen stowing bait, but I never went in for 
the science of their stowing it. There is too much wood around the vi- 
cinity of the bait. I have seen them stowing herring. I never saw 
them stowing pogies. , ; 

Q. Now, you say you have been to Brown Bank one trip ?—A. I have 
been about two trips a year for seven years. 

Q. Did you use the same bait, prepared in the same way ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You had no occasion to go in for bait ?—A. No. 

Q. You never had ?—A. No. 

Q. Where is Brown’s bank?—A. It is south of Cape Sable, about ~ 
forty miles from land. 

Q. You have been about two trips a year for seven years?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been to LaHave Bank ?—A. I have been about the same 
number of trips. ; 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2385 


Q. How far is that from the land, Nova Scotia?—A. About 60 or 65 
mniles from Cape Sable, about south by east. 

Q. With the same results ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You used your original pogies and menhaden that you brought 
from home ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now you know Cape Sable, and Cape Sable Island 7—A. I don’t 
know Sable Island. I have never been down there—Cape Sable I mean. 

Q. How near have you ever been to the shore there fishing ?—A. I 
have fished two trips in my life within sight of Cape Sable light. 

Q. Did you always see it?—A. No; once ina while; it was a red 
light; they have changed it now. 

Q. How often have you been there?—A. About three times in my 
life-time, in 42 years ; that is the furthest eastward I have ever fished. 

Q. And you never fished nearer the land of Cape Sable than about 
15 miles ?—A. No; I think it was full 15 miles, if it was not more. I 
don’t know how far you could see; it was very hard to see. It was a 
red light. 

Q. How long can you keep this halibut in the wells on board your — 
smacks ?—A. Just as long as we might stay down here in cold water ; 
we keep them in the well alive; we have had them in the well four 
weeks, just as bright as when they were taken from the water. When 
we go into Connecticut in the warm water they won’t live. 

Q. They will live off Nantucket Shoals and off the George’s ?—A. 
Through March, April, May, and the fore part of June. 

Q. Now when it becomes warm, if there is any danger of cheir dying, 
what do you do?—A. We take them out and kill them and stow them 
in ice. ' 

Q. Do you take more ice than enough to preserve your bait ?—A. We 
have two or two and a half tons generally to preserve our bait. We 
generally take 25 or 30 tons of ice on the trip. , 

Q. For the purpose of stowing the halibut 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you give them any food in the wells?—A. No; I have had 
them there when we have thrown in a lot of menhaden. We have 
scooped them up and thrown them into the wells with the halibut, and I 
have taken forty-four out of a halibut after they have been in. But we 
_— pretend to feed them, because we hardly ever put any food in the 
wells. 

Q. Do you find the halibut after such a long fast just as good as 
ever ?—A. Dol think heis? Yes, sir; I think he is the best fish in 
the world with the exception of the salmon. 

Q. After staying in the well he is just as good as when he is caught? 
—A. Yes; because he gets rid of all the filth, and he isall fish, what is 
left of him. Heisa splendid fish and I like to catch him. I would 
quit my meals any time to catch a good halibut. ry 

Q. Do the New London people catch fish the same way with smacks ? 
—A. Yes; the same way. : 

Q. And they fish in déep waters?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know anything about catching halibut inshore ?—A. No; 
_ not unless on the Nantucket Shoals, in shoal water on the George’s. 

4 Q. Well, I don’t call that inshore. I mean near the mainland ?—A. 
0... 
Q. Did you ever make port up here ?—A. Yes; I have three times— 

in to northward of Cape Sable. _ ; 

Q. What port ?—A. Stoddart Island. 

. That is somewhere about Cape Sable ?—A. Northward of Cape 
able. 


150 F 


2386 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What did you go for?—A. To ride out two hurricanes, two or 
three of the hardest winds ever I saw blow. That was in—I don’t ree- 
ollect exactly the year. It was in September. 

Q. Perhaps the Commission may all know, but from what size to what 
size do you catch these halibut? I don’t mean you to take an extraor- 
dinary case, but how do they ran?—A. They run about 60 pounds, 
dressed ; thatis, the head and tail off, and the “ innards” taken out. 

Q. Do you take a good deal of pains to clean them?—A. Yes; very 
much pains. We get all the blood out of the backbone, and every- 
thing. 

Qo. How do you do that ?—A. We scrape it out with knives, and wash 
them with scrub-brooms. We scrub the blood out of the back bone 
very particularly to keep them. 

Q. If you are going to keep halibut in ice for a long time your suc- 
cess depends very much upon the pains you take in fully cleansing 
them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. So with the success in keeping bait a long time?—A. Just the 
‘same. We clean every bony fish. We take every tish when we want 
to keep them a long time, and scrub the blood right out of the back- 
bone after the head is off, and wash them very clean. That leaves 
nothing but the fish and the bone. 

Q. How long do you think you could keep your ice; for instance, on 
the Grand Bank, if you wanted fresh bait for codfish, how long could 
you keep the bait fresh 2—A. I can’t tell; because re never went on a 
salt-fishing cruise in my life. I have never been aboard a salt-fishing 
vesse]. 1 can’t tell anything about that. 

Q. How do you catch halibut? Do you use trawls?—A. We use 
trawls and hand-lines. I call my two hands a trawl. I caleulate ny 
trawl would be equal to any other in the vessel. 

Q. Which do you think the most of for success generally, the hand- 
lines or the trawls?—A. Hand.-lines wherever we have fished. I have 
got the marks to show about my trawls right on my hands. 

Q. How is the number now and the quantity compared with what it 
was any 20 or 40 years ago?—A. There is plenty this year by what I 
have heard and seen of our smacks. I haven’t been halibut fishing. 

Q. How does this year for halibut fishing on the coast of the United 
States—I mean the small banks, the Nantucket Shoals, and all around 
that region—compare with other years ?—A. They are plentier than 
they have been for 35 years. 

Q. When your vessels from your town of Noank have got through the 
halibut fishing, what do they do?—A. Some of them haul up and some 
go south. I have always hauled up when I have got through the hali- 
but season. 

Q. About pound-fishing off the coast of Nantucket and along Rhode 
Island and Massachusetts, can yon tell us about that ?—A. I may tell 
you the best way I know. Ihave been in the pound business the last two 
years on the east end of Long Island. Last year at Elizabeth Island. 
All we had to contend with was Mr. Forbes, a big man from Boston. 

Q. Well, he owns the island 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You didn’t have a hard time after all?—A. We had a tip-top time 
after he found out we didn’t want to steal his deer or sheep. 

Q. He accommodated you, didn’t he, a good deal?—A. His sons came 
aboard, and they were very polite. We furnished them with bait and 
everything they wanted. They were very accommodating.. Allwehad | 
to do was to send up to the farm-house and get our milk generally. We x 


furnished them with all the fish they wanted to eat for the summer. x 


‘ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2387 


Q. Take the pound-fishing along the coast; perhaps you could describe 
how the pounds are constructed 7—A. Yes; of course we can. Wehad 
fifty-seven stakes driven to set them on, some in thirty-five feet of water, 
some as deep as thirty-eight feet of water. We ran them in from that 
on the leader until they came into four feet of water. 

Q. You drove the stakes in ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long are they? How high?—A. They are from thirty-five to 
forty-eight feet. ; 

Q. They are laid out in a straight line at right angles with the shore ?— 
A. First you drive these stakes down. Then there is a line rove 
through the bottom of the stake five feet from the end of the stake, 
through a hole bored in the stake. Then the net is bent on to these 
lines, and this net is hauled right down to the bottom. 

Q. By a sort of cable or chain? Which is it?—A. We have out-haul- 
ers. 

Q. What keeps them down ?—A. These ropes haul them down, and we 
belay them to the top of the stake. 

@. Do you have a block?—A. There is no block; nothing but the 
hole through the bottom of the stake. 

Ne How far does this line run out to sea?—A. It doesn’t run out at 
all. . 

Q. But how long is the line of stakes ?—A. Nine fathoms. 

Q. Then at the end you have little openings for the fish to go into?— 
A. There is the mouth of the pound. 

Q. Are there not two circular or semi-circular places ?—A. No; only 
one, on the inner part of the pound ; there is what we call the heart. 

Q. That has two openings ?—A. Yes; one on each side of the line. 

Q. So that whichever way the fish are going they will have to turn 
in ?—A. Yes. 

Q. It is owing to the peculiarity of the fish that they will not turn a 


_ Sharp corner ?—A. I suppose so. 


Q. Then in the heart there is a square box where they finally come 
up?—A. It is fifty to sixty feet square. We slack all these lines up. 
They are all cast off. We have out-haulers to haul the net right up to 
the top of the water. The fish aré all pursed up into one corner. 

Q. Now, is that a large business along that coast of Nantucket, Rhode 
Island, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Island ?—A. Yes; the biggest 
fishing in the world. 

Q. Has it very much inereased ?—A. Yes. 

* Q. How many men does it require to attend one of these pounds ?— 
A. ia took three to attend ours—generally three. We had only one 
pound, : 

Q. How are the catches, great or small?—A. They are great. They 
catch anything that comes. 

Q. What fish do you principally catch ?—A. When we first put on 


the string we catch halibut and herring or alewives, next mackerel; the 


next after the mackerel is the dog-fish ; then we catch shark, about 25 


_pounds average; then shad and the chiguit. 


Q. Do you catch menhaden ?—A. Then scup after that. 

Q. What do you say of the scup as a fresh fish for market ?—A. It 
is the biggest fish in the Fulton market. 

Q. What do you mean by the biggest fish. It bears. the biggest 
price 7?—A. 

Q. Is there any other name for the scup ?—A. The paugey. 
 Q. That brings a high price ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is there a great deal of it?—A. Yes; very plenty. But this year 


2388 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


they have been very small, and we have taken them out. We have 
turned out as much as 2,500 barrels of small paugies. They were not 
salable in the market, and we let them go to grow big. 

Q. Does the halibut bring a high or low price?—A. It has run this 
season from five to ten cents a pound. 

Q. But generally the halibut is abundant in the market and the price 
is low 7?—A. Yes. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. Is the price you mentioned that which you would get for them 
when you brought them in 7?—A. No. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Now, can you tell me how many vessels are engaged in cod-fishing 
for the New York market from your town?—A. There are 32 or 33. 

Q. Solely in that business ?—A. Yes; altogether. 

Q. When do they go to the Banks ?—A. The fore part of April. 

Q. Where ?7—A. To Nantucket Shoals altogether. 

Q. Now, I want you to describe to the Court whether there is an abun. 
dance or otherwise of cod on the Nantucket Shoals; how it is as a cod- 
fishing region.—A. Well, it is very big field for fishing cod. Last year 
they found them plentier than for twenty-five or twenty-eight years. 
They have been very plenty all the season. 

Q. This season ?7—A. Yes; they have plentier than for a good many 
years back. Right through the summer they have caught them very 
plenty anywhere from eighteen to twenty-five fathoms of water. 

Q. How often do they go in to New York?—A. Once a fortnight, 
about ten trips, from the first of April to the last of September. Then 
they quit that ice fishing, and along October and November they carry 
them alive in wells. They generally carry ice. 

Q. You say they run into New York how often ?—A. Once a fort- 
night. ‘hey have ten trips of ice-fishing and four trips in the wells. 

Q. Now, how many vessels from New London engage in supplying 
New York with fresh codfish 7—A. Well, I have looked over the list. 
Somewhere between twenty-five and twenty-eight. There should be 
more. 

(). Is Greenport engaged in the same business ?7—A. Yes. There are 
pot near so many vessels. 

Q. Well, these vessels, you say, are all smacks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What tonnage 7—A. Anywhere from 20 to 45 tons. 

Q. When they have a fare, about how many fish on the average are 
they able to take in ?—A. About 2,500 toa vessel. Some get more and 
some less. Some have been in with 4,300 or 4,400 of fresh fish. 

Q. How much did they sell for by the pound ?—A. From three and a 
half toeight cents. They averaged about five cents a pound. 

Q. What would be the average catch to a man ?—A. Well, there are 
about five men to a smack. . 

Q. How do you fit them out, on shares ?—A. Yes. They average 
about three men to a vessel ov shares, and a few men by the month at 
$20 and $25. 

Q. Has this fishing for New York market with fresh fish been found 
profitable ?—A. No; they makealiving. They just about make enough 
to live through the winter and start even next spring. 

Q. 1 suppose generally those eugaged as merchants init. doing a mer- 
cauule business, make wore mouey ?—A. The men in Fulton market 
make wore woney. There is where we leave our money. 


| 
i 
iq 

|e 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2389 


Q. I think you stated the number and quantity were as large as they 
ever had been ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you say whether this scup you thought so highly of is abund- 
ant?—A. Yes; itis plentier this year than for the past five or six years, 

Q. What period of time are they to be found ?—A. May and June. 
They are very small this year. We turn them out to let them go another 

year. 

: Q. But when they are full grown how big are they ?—A. A pound and 


a quarter. 


Q. How are the mackerel off Block Island and Rhode Island gener- 
ally, and off Elizabeth Island?—A. They have been very large and 
plenty this season. We have caught them in our pounds, and one ves- 
sel from our place did a pretty good business to the eastward of Block 
Island, and between Block Island and Gay Head, which is the western 
side of Martha’s Vineyard. 

Q. Then the blue fish ?—A. They have been very plenty. 

Q. What seasons. How long are they there ?—A. Well, they are there 
in the fore part of June till the last of October. 

Q. They are caught in Vineyard Sound 7—A. Yes. 

Q. They send them mostly to New York ?—A. Yes; they are all pre- 
pared for the New York market. 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. I have only a question or two to ask forinformation. Do you mean 
to say that these halibut in the tanks live for four weeks without food 
at all?—A. Yes. ; 

Q. And that they will keep up there?—A. Just as bright as when put 
in. 

Q. In fatness and weight ?—A. Yes. 

@. How do you account for it? Do they get food in the water?—A. 
I don’t know anything about it, but they are just as bright after they 
have been four, five, or six weeks, and just as lively as when they were 
taken. 

Q. Do you change the water ?—A. We have about six hundred holes 
in the bottom of the vessel. It is right throught the bottom, and the sea 
washes in through it. 

Q. Do you say you didn’t know anything about halibut on the Nova 
Scotia and Dominion shores until the last few years?—A. For the last 
seven years. 

. @. Have you gone up among them at all?—A. No; I never was there 
eatching halibut. 

Q. There is the Island of Cape Sable 7—A. I never went round it. I 
made Cape Sable light three times. 

Q. That pound-fishery; what coast is it on?—A. The States of Con- 
necticut and Massachusetts. ‘ 

Q. Do you embrace Massachusetts in your statement about the pound- 
fishemg?—A. Yes; that is where we fished last season. 

Q. How far off from the shores do you have these pounds ?—A. Maybe 
six hundred feet on the shore. Werun a leader from the shore right 
off into thirty-six or thirty-eight feet of water. 

Q. Do you catch mackerel in them ?—A. Yes. We got a lot of mack- 


~ erel, some 280 odd barrels, and sent them to New York. 


Q. They come pretty close in there ?—A. Yes; right along. 

_ Q. What takes them in?—A. I can’t tell. 

- Q. Is it bait?—A. There is no bait you can see that time of year. 
Q. Are there many of those pounds?—A. Yes. 


2390 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. The whole ground is covered ?—A. Yes; wherever they can drive 
the stakes. 

Q. I want to ask you whether these pounds injure the fishing along 
the shores or not ?—A. No; the fish are just as plenty now. 

Q. I don’t speak of this year, for this isan exceedingly good year, but 
for five or six years along, have you noticed any diminution of the fish- 
ing along there ?—A. No. 

Q. Are most of the mackerel caught by the pound along that coast?— 
A. Yes; about all. There is only one of our vessels out of the State of 
Connecticut for mackerel. 

Q. How deep are they 7—A. About 40 feet; you have a stake of about 
52 feet. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. When you speak of Massachusetts you don’t speak of Massachu- 
setts Bay, inside of Cape Ann and Cape Cod ?—A. No. 
Q. You mean the south shore?—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Davies: 
Q. I simply meant to ask you whether you embraced Massachusetts 


in the statement that the pound fishing has not diminished the fish ?— 
A. I speak of Buzzard Bay. It is south of Cape Cod. 


No. ‘37, 


‘THURSDAY, October 4, 1877. 
The Conference met. 
JOSEPH F. BRown, of Gloucester, Massachusetts, master mariner and 
fisherman, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, 
sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


- Question. You live in Gloucester ?—Answer. Yes. 

_Q. You are 34 years old?—A. About that. 

Q. Where have you been fishing this summer ?—A. On the north side 
of Prince Edward Island, at Tracadie. 

Q. What is the name of the schooner you have been fishing in ?—A. 
The Riverdale. 

Q. What time did you go to the island ?—A. I arrived there the 25th 
day of July. 

Q. What has become of the schooner now ?—A. She was cast away 
on Tracadie Beach the 22d day of September. 

Q. How have you been fishing this summer ?—A. In boats. 

Q. Not from a vessel ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you go up to fish in boats?—A. Yes; we fitted for that voyage 
expressly to fish in boats. 

Q. How many boats did you take?—A,. Two seine-boats ang two 
dories 


Q. How many men ?—A,. Twelve men to fish. 

Q. You fished from what time to what tine ?—A. From the 26th day 
of July until about the 20th September. 

Q. Until your vessel was cast away 7?—A. Yes. 

@. How many barrels of mackerel did your boats catch ?—A. One 
hundred barrels. 

Q. How far off from the shore have you been fishing in the boats this 
summer ?—A. About three miles, in that vicinity. We have been off as 
far as five miles, and sometimes inhore. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2391 


Q. How many boats are there fishing out of Tracadie?—A. Nineteen, 
including ours. 

Q. What size boats; how many men ?—A. They averaged about four 
men, I should think. 

Q. How did you happen to get your vessel stranded ?—A. A gale of 
wind came up on the 21st. We parted both chains and went ashore. 

Q. You hope to get your vessel off —A. Yes; I think we shall. 

Q. Now have you seen the mackerel vessels there this summer ?—A. 
Yes; occasionally we have seen them pass up and down. 

Q. What is the greatest number you have seen any one day ?—A. | 
have seen as high as 30 sail. 

Q. Do you know at all what luck they have fishing 7—A. Well, I think 
the general average has been pretty poor. 

Q. Tell all you know about that.—A. Well, the highest trip I have 
known or heard of is 350 barrels, and very few at that. 

Q. What vessel got that?—A. I can’t tell you that; but I can tell 


- you of the George B. Loring that got 250 barrels. I can’t tell the name 


of one that got 350 barrels. 

Q. Do you know about the result of the fishing of any other vessels ?— 
A. I was aboard the Wildfire six weeks ago. She had got 100 barrels 
and had been in the bay about a month; she had 21 men. 

Q. Any others ?—A. That is all I know. 

Q. If you have any information abont any other vessels, either suc- 
ceeding or failing, you may state what you know.—A. Well, I heard 
“vet the mackerel-fishing in the bay had been a failure, as near as I cau 

ear. 

Q. Were you in the bay last year ?—-A. Yes. , 

Q. At the same place 7—A. Just about the same voyage; we were not 
fitted quite as well as we were this year. 

Q. What did you do last year, buy or catch 7—A. We came mostly to 
buy; we caught 20 barrels. 

Q. With boats ?—-A. We had one dory and the vessel’s boats. 

«. Has your experiment this year been successtul ?—A. No; it has 
been poor. 

Q. Would it have been successful if you hadn’t lost your vessel ?—A. 
No; we would have lost money if we hadn’t lost our vessel. 

Q. What have been the average prices of mackerel this summer at 
Tracadie—I mean after it is cured. Give us the highest and the lowest 
prices you have known.—A. The highest sold for $10.50, that is for 200 

‘pounds of fish after they were cured. 

Q. What is the lowest?—A. $3.50. 

Q. What is the average?—A. About $7.00, I should judge. 

Q. Now, you have been fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Law- - 
rence in former years a good many times I believe? What was the first 
ag he were in the gulf?—A. The first year I was in a schooner called 
the Saline. 

Q. What year ?—A. 757, I think, as near as I can tell. 

Q. You must have been a boy of 14?—A. Yes; that was when I first 
commenced. 

Q. Wheu were you first a skipper yourself ?—A. I think in ’64. 

Q. How many trips have you made to the bay as skipper?—A. Two; 
last year and this year is all I have ever been master. 

Q. When you were here before you have been assharesman ?—A. Yes. 
_ Q. But you have been a skipper in mackerel vessels elsewhere ?—A. 
Yes; I have been on our shore. 


2392 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What year did you say you were first a skipper ?7—A. 64 I think 
it was. 

Q. I will just run rapidly through your fishing experience since that 
time. What was the first schooner of which you were in command ?— 
A. The Eclipse. 

Q. What did you do the first year?—A. We followed the George’s 
fishing until along in July. Some time in the first of July. Then fitted 
for mackerel on the shore between Mount Desert and Cape Cod. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take off the shores of the 
United States that year?—A. Somewhere about 260 barrels I think. 

Q. Take the next year, 1865?—A. We were in about the same busi- 
ness—the same voyage. We landed about the same number cf barrels. 
Somewhere in that vicinity. 

Q. When fishing off the United States coast did you make one trip 
or a number of trips ?—A. We made a number of trips. 

Q. What were you doivg in 1866?—A. In 1866. 1 was in Bay Cha- 
leurs or the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

Q. You use two terms. Do you mean one and the same thing ?— 
A. One is called the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the other the Bay Chal- 
eurs. The fishermen eall it Bay Chaleurs sometimes. 

Q. It is the same thing you mean. The whole gulf goes by the name 
of Bay Chaleurs sometimes 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the Bay Chaleurs proper ?—A. It is a small bay to the 
northward, The fishermen call the whole gulf Bay Chaleurs. 

Q. What was the size of the vessel you were in in 1866?—A. About 
140 tons. 

Q. What was her name ?7—A. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did she take 7—A. 500 barrels we 
landed. 

Q. Did you go home with that one trip A. Yes; we were here all 
the season. 

- Q. She was a large vessel. How many hands did she have ?—A. 20 
men. 

Q. Now, where were these mackerel caught 7—A. They were caught 
at different places in the bay, at Bradley, Orphan, and Magdalens, aud 
round Margaree and Port Hood, around there in the fall. Late iu the 
fall we got up as far as that. 

Q. Have you been in the gulf fishing for mackerel since that year ?— 
A. Not until last year. 

Q. How many years had you been there before 1864 ?—A. I had been 
here four seasons. 

Q. Taking your entire fishing experience, I wish you would tell the 
Commission what was the principal grourd on which you caught mack- 
erel. What was the principal fishing ground 7—A. Banks Bradley and 
Orphan, and the Magdalen Islands were our principal fishing ground. 

Q. Now, to what extent have you fished within three miles of the 
shore ?—A. Well, but very little. I don’t recollect ever catching but 
very few fish inside of three miles until this year. 

Q. When you have been in boats ?—A. Yes. 

@. I wish you would explain to the Commission how the vessel-fish- 
ing is carried on, and how the boat-fishing is carried on, and what is the 
difference between them, as you understand ?—A. Well, the vessel-fish- 
ing is more in deep water and offshore. They go searching after fish. | 
In the boat-fishing, we lie and wait for the fish to come to us. ' 

Q. Can the vessels get fish in the places where the boats usually 
= ?—A. Not to any extent. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2393 


Q. When the boats are fishing near shore?—A. No; never, when the 
boats are fishing near shore. 

Q. When the boats are fishing nearshore how do they take mackerel? 
Is it in large schools?—A. No; I think the mackerel all through the 
north shore, so far as I have seen, seem to be scattered and feed on 
bottom, and all the way we can get them is to anchor. -When the ves- 
sels come in among us they never get anything at all. They have tried 
it this year two or three times right in among the boats, but never could 
do any thing. 

Q. Well, can the vessels catch mackerel enough to make a profitable 
voyage if they fish in the manner in which the boats do?—A. No, they 
cannot. 

Q. What is the largest number of mackerel vessels you ever saw fish- 
ing together, that you recollect ?—A. In one place ? 

Q. Yes.—A. I think I have seen 500 sail of vessels in Boston Bay in 
one fleet. 

Q. What is the largest number you ever saw together in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence ?—A. Well, I think 250 sail is the largest. 

Q. Where was that 1A, Around Port Hood and Margaree in the 
fall of the year, when they all colleeted there in October. 

Q. What year was it?—A. I could not tell exactly, but I think that 
was 1866. . : 

Q. Have you ever fished or been for fish to the Bay Chaleur, proper? 
—A. Into the bay? I have been there but I never caught any fish in 
the Bay Chaleur at all. I have been there once or twice. 

Q. Have you fished in the bend of the island; that is, Prince Edward 
Island, in vessels ?—A. I have tried. I have been in vessels that: tried 
up the island, but never caught any mackerel to speak of in the bend. 

Q. Is it safe or dangerous ?—A. It is the most dangerous place I ° 
know of in the gulf. 

Q. Why?—A. Such a deep bend and shoal water. It is impossible 
for a vessel to get out. After a wind has been three hours blowing it 
would be almost impossible for a vessel to get out.’ 

Q. How is it with respect to taking refuge in the harbors?—A. The 
harbors are very dangerous to enter, except they get in before the breeze 
comes on or in the day time. They are not fit to enter in the night time 
in bad weather. 

Q. Why ?—A. They are barred harbors and shoal water. 

Q. What do you mean by barred harbors ?—A. A bar of land stretch- 


‘ing across the mouth. 


Q. Have you ever fished in the vicinity of Margaree ?—A. I have. 

Q. What time of the year?—A. October, I think. 

‘Q. At what distance from the shore of the island have you fished in 
that vicinity ?—A. I have fished all the way from three or’ four miles, 
but in sight of the land ten or fifteen miles off. 

Q. Huve you ever fished close inside of there?—A. No. 

Q. Have you ever fished inside of three miles of the island ?—A. I 
might have béen in within three miles. I don’t think 1 have caught any 
fish there. 

-Q. Have the mackerel been found this summer in schools?—A. No. I 
haven’t seen a school of mackerel since I have been in the bay. No 
large body of mackerel I haven’t seen. 

Q. Can the vessels make a profitable catch of fish unless there is a 
large school ?—A. No; 1 don’t think they can. 

Q. How do you manage in boats? How have you got your 100 bar- 
rels?—A, I have been out every morning when there was a chance at 


2394 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


anchor, and remained until eight or nine o’clock. The highest number 
of fish we have caught to a man has been 260. 

Q. Two hundred and sixty mackerel would make how much more or 
less than a barrel ?—A. The last we caught, 260 would make a barrel. 
The first we caught it would take nearly 300 to a barrel. 

Q. How does the quality of the mackerel you have been taking this 
summer in boats range ?—A. They range about one-third 3’s, about one- 
third 2’s, and one-third 1’s. 

Q. Pretty good mackerel 7—A. No. I call them pretty poor. 

Q. Is that a poor average? How does it compare with the mack- 
erel you used to take at the Magdalen Islands formerly when vessel- 
fishing ?—A. It was a good deal better than they have been this year. 

Q. Have you sold these hundred barrels?—A. No; I only judge about 
the value; I don’t know. 

Q. How have the boats that fished about you been doing in compari- 
son with you ?—A. They seem to think they have done very well. They 
seem to be satisfied. 

Q. Have they caught any more than you have ?—A. No; I think we 
have caught more than the average. 

Q. Explain how it is that they can be doing well while you regard 
yourselves as losing money ?—A. They are under no expenses. They 
are farmers, part of them, and they go out fishing when it suits, so that 
it is nearly all gain to them. Iam under a good deal of expense. 

Q. Have you ever seen the boats fishing with the vessels in former 
years ?—A. No, sir; very seldom. 

Q. Have you chartered any schoovers, Gloucester schooners, within 
one or two years?—A. No; I chartered my own last year to D.C. & H. 

Babson. 
' QQ. What did you get for her charter?—A. One hundred and fifty dol- 
lars a month for four months, to go to Tracadie and buy and catch 
mackerel—about the same voyage as this year, only last year we went 
mostly to buy. 

Q. How were you employed last year ?—A. I was hired. 

Q. On wages ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I suppose you have no objections to state them ?—A. No; they 
paid me $75 a month. 

Q. To take charge of the vessel and twelve men 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you get anything but that?—A. Anything except that? 
No, sir; only $150 a month for the vessel and $75 a month tor myself. 

Q. How were the men paid ?—A. Two were on shares, interested in 
the voyage, and others were hired from $35 to $15 a month. 

Q. Are you speaking now of this year ?—A. Last year. 

Q. You ouly got ten barrels of mackerel last year. The result must 
have been unprofitable to the people who took the charter ?—A. Twenty 
barrels we got, as near as I know; I don’t know exactly. I was told 
then they had sunk between $1,500 and $1,600. 

Q. When a vessel is fitted out for a mackerel-trip, with a dozen men 
on board or thereabouts, what is the average cost of provisions per day 
for the men?—A. About 45 cents. 

Q. Do you mean for this year or last year ?—A. I mean these last two 
or three years. 

@. How does that compare with what it was 7, or 8 or 10 years 
ago ?—A. I should think it took 70 or (5 cents eight or nine years ago 
when things were high. 

Q. Under the war prices ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2395 


Q. In what depth of water do you catch mackerel ?—A. From five to 
ten fathoms. 

Q. Taking your experience of mackerel fishing in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence, how much value do you attach to the right to cateh fish within 
three miles of the shore ?—A. Mine is not any. I will never pursue the 
business again in a vessel. ; 

Q. You never would pursue it again ?—A. No; this is my first year’s 
experience, and I dowt want any more. 

Q. Then, you are not employed this year ?—A. No; I am on my own 
account. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. Where did you keep your vessel ?—A. This season ? 

Q. Yes.—A. In Tracadie Harbor. ‘ 

Q. Where was she—on the beach?—A. No; about southwest from 
the mouth of the harbor. ; 

Q. Tracadie is a dangerous place, is it not ?—A, Well, the harbor, I 
think, is very good. If you go out, it is a dangerous place outside. 

Q. It is a dangerous place inside, is it not? Was it not inside you 
were lost ?—A. We were not lost. ~ , 

Q. Then it isnot a dangerous place inside 7—A. Well, it is not dan- 
gerons, because the vessel is there, and there is no danger. None of us 
were lost at ail. 

Q. Is it a usual thing for a vessel to go ashore inside of a harbor ?— 
A. Well, it is very seldom among our vessels there. There were ten 
boats on the beach besides myself. 

Q. But do you know whether it is usual for vessels to go ashore in- 
side? Has it ever been known before ?—A. Yes; in 1853 a large fleet 
went ashore—American vessels. 

Q. Inside of a harbor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Notsincee that ?—A. Not that I know of. 

Q. Have you heard of any on that dangerous coast of the island since 
that large gale?—A. Yes; 1 heard of two the fifth day of last July; 
two Nova Scotia vessels were cast away at St. Peter’s. 

Q. In 1876 ?—A. Yes. ° 

Q. Any others have you heard of ?—A. No. 

Q. Since the great gale?—A. No; I haven’t heard of others. 

Q. How many have been cast away on the Magdalens?—A. Of late 
years? That I could not tell. 

Q. Is it a dangerous place ?—A. I don’t consider it as dangerous as 
the island, the north side. 

Q. But you don’t know anything about how,many vessels have been 
cast away 7—A. Well, I know from the experience I had there. I have 
had experience there, and I judge by that. 

Q. Iam instructed that vessels leave there in consequence of the 
dangers of the coast, that they leave there and come to the other shores, 
the mackerel-fishing vessels—~is that correct ?—A. I don’t think it is. 
They leave there in the fall to follow the mackerel. 

Q. I got it from a very truthful man, and I want to ask you whether 
it is so or not, that it is such a dangerous place that they leave it early, 
and come to other coasts, to the Cape Breton coast, Sydney, St. Ann’s, 
and Margaree?—A. I think they go to Margaree and Port Hood. Port 
Hood is the best harbor on the whole coast. That is the reason, I think, 
they go there, ° 
' Q. That is the reason they go there?—A. Well, the mackerel gen- 
erally leave the Magdalens, aud they follow the mackerel. 


2396 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. At the time the stormy weather comes on they leave there ?—A- 
Yes. 

Q. Then you are not under the necessity of encountering the danger 
if you are only there in the summer months. You would not say, asa 
master mariner, that there was any danger on the island in the summer 
months ?—A. Oh, there is some danger. You may have a gale. 

Q. Well, that is true of this harbor here. I think there have been 
some vessels wrecked in this harbor, but as a master mariner, do you 
say that in the summer months itis a dangerous thing to fish in the 
bend of Prince Edward Island?—A. Yes; I think itis a dangerous 
place for a vessel fishing in the summer, or any season. 

Q. Yet there has not been a vessel lost except the two? Where were 
they lost ?—A. At St. Peter’s. 

Q. That is not the bend of the island ?—A. St. Peter’s is not! It is 
as nearly in the bend as you can go, as far as I am informed. 

Q. Then I am mistaken. Malpeque is the bend ?—A. I would not be 
positive, but Tracadie is about 45 miles from East Point, and St. one 
I think, is 11 or 12 miles to the eastward of that. 

Q. That i is, it is nearer the point ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, that cannot be anything like as dangerous as the center ?— 
A. Well, that is nearly the center. 

Q. Well, what time were these vessels lost that you speak of ?—A. 
The 5th day of July. 

Q. Well, the master must have been at fault ?—A. Well, I may be at 
fault now. 

Q. i didn’t wish to say so at all?—A. Well, you judge from that. 

Q. Were you there when those other vessels were lost ?—A. I was in 
Tracadie the 5th day of July, when they went ashore. 

Q. Was that in the harbor?—A. No; they were outside. I was in 
the harbor. 

Q. It was in the night ?—A. I could not tell whether it was in the 
night or day. 

Q. You don’t know how they came to be lost; you had no conversa- 
tion with them ?—A. No; I know they were cast away, that is all. 

Q. You don’t know anything about what was the motive for casting 
them away?—A. Well, the wind was the occasion of it. 

Q. You considered it a dangerous gale, then, in July? A. It was a 
heavy breeze. 

@. Had you made harbor to save yourselves ?—A. Yes; we made 
harbor that morning early. 

Q. Well, that is what those others should have done. A little fore- 
thought would have saved them ?—A. Perhaps they could not get there 
in season. I have been caught myself in gales of wind right near har- 
bor, and had to go off. 

Q. I cannot understand. Perhaps you will explain how you came to 
select Tracadie as a place for fishing. One would consider it was not the 
best place?—A. Well, I was there last year, and I thought by appear- 
ances there was a prospect of a very good year’s work, and that I might 
do well. My vessel is not caleulated for the fishing business, that is, for 
the mackerel business to go off shore, and that is the reason I went in 
boats instead of going in a vessel. 

Q. Why didn’t you go to the Magdalens or some better place ?—A. 
Well, I don’t know that that is better. 

Q. 1 thonght, according to your view, that it was?—A. It is at some 
seasons, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2397 


Q. Why didn’t you go to Port Hood ?—A. We don’t generally fish at 
Port Hood until late in the fall. 

Q. The boats fish there all sammer; don’t they?—A. I don’t know. I 
never fished iu boats till last year and this year. 

Q. When you were about engaging in the enterprise of boat-fishing, 
did you inquire as to the boat-fishing in any other places ?—A. No; | 
never made any inquiries at all. 

Q. You made no inquiries as to the best places, but just simply took 
a fancy to select Tracadie?—A. Yes; I was there last year, that is the 
reason. 

Q. Then in your view you were induced to believe it would be a suc- 
cess ?—A. I thought last year it looked favorable. 

Q. Don’t you think you are taking rather too gloomy a view of the 
future ?—A. The whole mackerel I have got, allowing. my vessel was 
afloat, would not pay the bills. 

Q. Ev en with that, that is only one year; what did you do when you 
were here before ?—A. I had made one or two prosperous voyages, and 
I have made pretty poor ones, very poor. 

Q. How many voyages have you made altogether, in round num- 
bers ?—-A. Six or seven full seasons. 

Q. You mean more than oue trip a season ?—A. No; never but one 
trip. 

Q. Well, how many of hana trips have been successful, do you con- 
sider ?—A. Two were very successful. 

Q. Were those two early in the period over which you fished 7—A. 
One, we came early and staid late. The other one, we came in July and 
went home decently early, probably in September. I conld not say 
exactly when, as it was some time ago. 

Q. But I asked whether they were early in the period over which you 
fished; were they at the beginning of your fishing ?—A. One was the 
third year. The other was the fourth time. 

Q. Now, if I uuderstand: you correctly, you never fished within three 
miles much ?7—A. No. 

Q. Once or twice you mentioned when you tried inshore?—A. Yes; 
but we never caught anything to speak of. 

(). You never tried more than once or twice?—A. I would not say 
once or twice, or three or four times. 

Q. But very few times indeed 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Had you a license, do you recollect ?—A. No; I could not tell 
"that. Last year and this year I was master. The other years 1 was 
not master. ~ 

Q. Then you don’t know; do you know whether there were cutters ?— 
A: I have never been boarded by cutters in the bay in my life. 

Q. During any of the years that you fished, was it forbidden ?7—A. 
Never that I knew of. 

4 Q. You understood that you had a right to go in for fish 7—A. I didn’t 
now. 

Q. A good many American fishermen, we have understood, have fished 
at Bradley and Orphan and the Magdalens. A certain number have 
always gone there. Some of them have done pretty well and others 
haven’t, and yet they never tried inshore fishing ?—A. Well, this year 
I have known vessels try inshore, aud they haven’t done anything to 
my kvowledge amongst the boats. 

Q. But you were making losing voyages before ?—A. This year? 

Q. No; before. You made seven voyages and lost money on five of 
them. But you never tried inshore?7—A. Well, we tried and we spoke 


2398 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to the boats and found there was nothing doing. When they did try 
they didn’t do anything. 

Q. But you didn’t give it a successful trial, I should say. I may be 
wrong. Your general fishing was outside? Your idea of fishing was 
outside?—A. Yes; that is what we fitted for. 

Q. Well, you failed year after year for five years and didn’t try in- 
shore ?—A. QO, we tried it. 

Q. L asked you how often, and you mentioned once or twice, or three 
or four times. Now I am speaking of a successful testing of it for a 
season. What I would like to hear would be some person who has 
tested it for a season. For instance, we have had vessel fter vessel, 
and witness after witness; we have had a hundred vessels that ran in 
as close as they could get to the shore, and then drifted off until they got 
beyond three miles, and then came in again, and repeated the operation, 
continuing that course of fishing for a whole season. We have had 
hundreds of them.—A. I don’t think I was ever near enough. 

Q. For instance, at St. Anns, we had the evidence of the collector 
of customs, of vessels at St. Anns running in there and drifting off in 
the way I have described. You never tried that?—A. No; I never 
tried to follow it up. 

Q. Perhaps you might try that next year. It might be a hint ?—A. 
No; I don’t think [ shall. I have had two successive trips. 

Q. You will make money out of these mackerel this year. What will 
you sell them for?) You bought some at $3.50?—A. No, I didn’t. 

Q. You didn’t buy any this vear ?—A. No, we didn’t buy any mackerel. 

Q. It was last year ?—A. We went there purposely to buy, but didn’t 
buy anything. 

Q. You were giving the price they were selling for?—A. Yes. 

Q. They were selling for $10.50 and $3.50 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You would have made money if you had bought them ?—A. I don’t 
think so. I would sell mine now for $10.50. é 

Q. There. But what will you sell them for at home?—A. I think 
$7.50, $11, and $16, is the last quotation. 

Q. Did you have any colonial fishermen, province fishermen, on board 
your vessel any time?—A. No. Do you mean, did we have any em- 
ployed? No. 

Q. That is unusual for an American vessel not to have a majority of 
provincial men on board?—A. Yes; I should judge about two-thirds. 

Q. Well, does it not occur to you that that may be the reason you didn’t 
succeed. . You wanted a little of the provincial element on board?—A. 
No; [ don’t think we needed that at all. 

Q. Well, we have had many instances where they have done well and 
made large catches. They understood where to catch fish. Have you 
ever heard of the practice of lee-bowing boats?—A. No. I have heard 
of lee-bowing vessels. 

Q. You have tried to lee-bow vessels? —A. Yes; I have tried that. 

? Q. You consider that all right enough?—A. Yes. I should consider it 
air. 

Q. Well, it is just as fair to lee-bow a boat as a vessel?—A. I don’t 
know how to lee-bow a boat. 

Q. Would it not be just as fair? I don’t ask you whether you did it 
or not ?—A. I don’t know whether it is as fair or not, because I don’t 
know how. 

Q. That would not have the slightest effect on its fairness, whether 
you know or not ?—A. I don’t know anything about that. 

Q. Suppose I tell you how ?—A. Well, then it would be fair enough. 


- 


, 


SS 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2399 


Q. Would you consider it fair, then?—A. Yes, I would. 

@. You never tried it, and never saw it done, but you would consider 
it perfectly fair?—A. Yes; perfectly fair. 

Q. You have lee-bowed vessels, and would do it again?—A. I have 
done that. 

Q. That has been in the case of vessels out in deep water, where you 
don’t succeed ?—A. O, we do succeed sometimes. 

Q. In five trips out of seven you have been unsuccessful. But in the 
instances we have had of lee-bowing boats, and going wherever they 
could get them, they have been successiul, and made money?—A. Well, 
I haven’t done that. 

Q. Well, I only want to suggest that it may be done, and money made 
out of it. "You say you never tried it, and never saw it done?—A. I 
never lee-bowed boats, and never knew how it could be done. That is 
all the trouble there. 

Q. There are no fishing stages at Tracadie?—A. Yes. 

Q. When were they put up there?—A. There are two stages with 
buildings on them, and two besides with no buildings. 

Q. When were they put there 1A. Three of them were there last 
year, and one was put since. 

Q. But not before that ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. It is rather a new place?—A. No; I don’t think it is. I do not 
know. I could not tell you. 

Q. Are they men who carry on fishing to a large extent Bieetvee 2 
A. No; not very large. 

Q. Well, there has never been any large dealer or fish-merchant that 
had stages there like they have at other places?—A. McDonald, of 
Georgetown, is interested in that one. I do not know how large it is. 
He has three boats. 

Q. How many fishing stages are there at Rustico?—A. I could not 
tell. I never was in. 

Q. You never made inquiries ?—A. I have made some inquiries about 
Mr. Hall’s boats. I know how many boats I have heard he has. He has 
a stage. I don’t know how )arge it is. 

Q. Then, at Tracadie, these boats from the island have done well 7— 
A. They think they have. 

Q. You think so, too?—A. Well, they think so. 

Q. Well, the only reason you think you haven’t is that you are ia 
_ expenses A. I am under great expenses. 

Q. What is the expense?—A,. About $600 a month, I should judge: 

Q. You didn’t buy any fish ?—A. No. 

Q. Last year you bought very few ?—A, I didn’t buy any. 

Q. You went there to bay—why didn’t you?—A. We could not buy 
to save much, to make anything. 

Q. But you went there to buy 7—A. I was hired. I had charge of the 


_ vessel, and my employers managed the buying. 


Q. What did you do during the season ?—A. Fished a little in boats. 

Q. How long were you there ?—A. From the 5th of July to the 6th of 
August, one month and one day. 

Q. You weren’t in there very long ?—A. No. 

Q. Did the boats do very well there ?—A. Not in that month. 

Q. They did after that, Lam told?—A. Well, lam told they didn’t do 
apything extra after that. 

Q. In the fall they did well; they told us so themselves.—A. Well, I 
could not say for certain. 

Q. Well, now, you must take a very gloomy view of affairs, because 


2400 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


we ure informed this is the best year they have ever had except one.— 
A. Well, if that is the case, why I need hardly go again. I had better 
give it up. 

Q. We don’t deny that, and I may disclose to you that that is our 
theory. Now is it a good year or not ?—A. It has been a poor year for 
me, very poor. 

Q. Had you made no inquiries about others ?—A. I know about other 
boats. ; 

Q. All along the coast they have a number of boats. Have you ever 
asked how many ?—A. No; I never asked that question. I suppose it 
would be impossible almost to find out. 

Q. No, you would find out very easily. You could find out by reading 
this evidence. You have never asked how they got on at other places ? 
—A. I have asked boats four or five miles below my place, and I have 
asked them from Rustico, aud they have done about the same as we 
have. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. What good would fishing stages at Tracadie do you ?—A. No good. 

Q. There are two or three of them where you are ?—A. Four. 

Q. You have never been to Rustico Harbor ?—A. No; but [ have been 
up as far as to meet the boats. Wehave been up along the coast right 
off amongst the boats, and we have met the Savage Harbor boats. 

Q. Have yon ever ingnired of the Rustico boats ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What were you toid about the quantity of the mackerel they were 
catching ?—A. They were doing about the same as we did. 

Q. Now, what were you told last year as to the success of the boats 
through the whole season ?—A. Last year, as far as I can tell, it was a 
poor season. 

Q. Who told you so?—A. Most every one. They will tell you so 
now. The people there will tell you so, the fishermen. 

Q. What is lee-bowing a vessel, and why do you say you don’t know 
what lee-bowing a boat is? Explain.—aA. Well, a vessel we lee-bow 
under sail for mackerel, aud drift with the wind; in lee-bowing we come 
under the vessel’s lee and stop as near as we can under her lee-bow. 
Then we throw bait, and that bait gets underneath the other vessel 
and tolls off the mackerel; that is, sometimes it does and sometimes it 
does not; then we drift away from the other vessel with the mackerel. 
But the boats are at anchor, and spring up. There is no sail on the 
boats at all. I have never hove to at all. 

Q. Why cannot a vessel lee-bow a boat at anchor?—A. Because the 
boat is at anchor, and the vessel is under sail. 

Q. Explain why. Ido not understand why you cannot lee-bow her. 
<7 Well, I might shoot up alongside, but 1 would drift away from 

er. 

Q. How long would you be within a short distance of a boat at 
anchor?—A. I could not tell exactly, but we would drift away very fast. 
We drift two knots an hour in the vessel I am in. 

Q. I don’t understand why you could not draw the fish that the boats 
are fishing away.—A. I have seen that tried, and they could not do any- 
thing at all. 

Q. Why not?—A. That I cannot say—why not. They didn’t get the 
mackerel away. 

Q. Were the boats fishing in a school of mackerel, or fishing for mack- 
erel from the bottom 7—A. From the bottom. They were scattered trom 
a mile to a mile and a half apart. 


aed 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2401 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. Were you there as late as the 22d of September ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That was the day of the storm ?7—A. Yes, 

Q. Now I want to ask you, for a few days previously, a week or a 
fortnight previously, did you see any mackerel vessels along the coast? 
—A. Yes, the day before the breeze I saw six go up the bight toward 
OCascumpeque and Malpeque, and that way. 

Q. Well, taking the week or fortnight previously, how many would 
you say you have seen?—A. I did not see a great many the last week 
or ten days we were there at all. The last day before the breeze 1 
might have seen some passing and repassing, nothing to speak of. I 
suppose it was a month ago when I saw a large fleet. 

Q. You did not go. up along the coast to East Point the week previ- 
ous to the 22d? Did you go along toward East Point?—A. No further 
than I went in a boat, sometimes five or six miles. __ ‘ 

Q. I wanted to see whether you had seen the fleet that was at East 
Point at all ?—A. No; I didn’t see the East Point fleet at all. 


No. 38. 


Perer H. Mitts, of Deer Isle, in the State of Maine, farmer and 
fisherman, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, 
sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot : 

Question. Where is your place of residence ?—Answer. Deer Island. 

(). How long, have you been living there ?—A. About 26 years. , 

Q. Where is Deer Island ?—-A. In Penobscot Bay; about 70 miles 
southward of Bangor. 

Q. What has been your occupation ?—A. Fishing, farming, and some 
mechanical business. 

Q. What has been, during 20 years, the chief occupation of the peo- 
ple of Deer Island? Fishing ?—A. Yes, sir; mackerel-fishing mostly. 

Q. Well, in the 20 years of your experience has there been very 
much change in the character of the business ?7—A. There has. 

Q. How ?7—A. It has depreciated. 

Q. What was the average fleet of Deer Island when you knew it ?— 
A. I haven’t any records, but from my judgment 1 should say perhaps 
150 sail of vessel. 

- Q. About what tonnage 7—A. They would average 50 tons. , 

. What is the fleet now ?—A. There may be 25 sail of vessel, and 
there may not be so many. ; 

Q. Where has the fleet fished ; in the gulf?—A. Years past they have 
fished in the gulf. : 

Q. Where are they fishing now mostly 7—A. On the coast of the 
United States. 

Q. Well, then, to what do you attribute the depreciation; to the fail- 
ure of the mackerel or of the profit in the business ?—A. There does 
not seem to be a profit in the business. 

Q. In your 20 years’ experience of Deer Island, has anybody realized 


- a fortune ?—A. No; not that I know of. 


Q. You know the neighborhood of Deer Island well? How far are 
you from Castine 7?—A. 20 miles. : 
ng Was there any time when that was a large fishing place?—A. 
es. 
Q. How is it now 7?—A. It is dull, extremely dull. 


151 F 


2402 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Can you tell what is the general character of the Maine fishing now, 
compared with what it was twenty years ago ?—A. It is much depre- 
ciated. 

Q. With your experience of the fishery for twenty years, what is the 
profit? Is it in the fishing, or in the handling of it afterwards ?—A. O, 
well, it is in the handling of the fish, the principal profit. 

Q. Do you know anything of the fishing about Prince Edward Island 
—the shore fishing ?—A. Well, I have been there a few years. 

Q. You say you were a farmer and shore fisher yourself, at home ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Were you familiar with the habits of the fishermen about Prince 
Edward Island ?—A. Yes, I was. 

Q. How far out did their boats catch fish when you knew them? What 
was the average run of their voyages ?—A. Well, I never fished myself 
in small boats from Prince Edward Island, but I had intercouse with 
fishermen there. They told me they fished off twelve or fifteen miles. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Were you fishing at all in the bay 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Many years ?—A. Not a great many years. 

Q. Were you in an island vessel, or an American vessel ?—A. Our own 
island vessels—Deer Island. 

Q. What years did you goto the gulf?—A. Well, sir, I only have the 
records of two years. I think I was there in 1853, and the year 1856; 
but the dates of my other years in the gulf have slipped my memory. 

@. When you speak of the island fishermen, and as to the distance at 
which they were accustomed to fish from the shore, you have reference 
to these years, twenty years ago?—A. No, sir, inside of that. I can’t 
fix the date of the time I had intercourse with them. 

Q. I should like you to try, because there is a little variance between 
what you say and the evidence we have. What was the last year you 
. were there ?—A. I haven’t the date of the last year I was there. 
~ Q. But you can tell us about what it was, surely? You remember 1853 
and 1856 ?7—A. I have the records for them; that is all. I don’t trust 
my memory. 

Q. Does your memory entirely fail you apart from the records?—A. 
No, sir, not entirely. | 

. Well, if it does not fail you entirely, perhaps you will tell me ?— 
A. Well, can’t tell youthat. I only have the dates of those two years. 
It would be impossible for me to tell you the last time. 

Q. Well, the time before the last ?7—A. Well, I can’t tell you that. I 
only have the dates of these two years. : 
Q. How many years were you there altogether ?—A. That I don’t | 

know. 

Q. What fishermen did you converse with ?—A. The boat fishermen 
from the north side of Prince Edward Island. 

Q. What part?—A. French Village, North Cape. 

Q. That would be near Tignish ?—A. Near about. 

(). Apart from what the fishermen told you would you tell this Com- 
mission as the result of what you saw that the boats were accustomed 
to fish about 10 or 12 miles? Would you venture to assert that as the 
best information you had from what you saw apart from what you have 
said the fishermen told you ?—A. No; I would not assert that from my 
own experience, because I never took pains to consider the distance. 

Q. I want you to tell the size of the boats they fished in about Tignish, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2403 


they were manned by two men, were they not ?—A. From two to three 
I think they averaged. 

Q. What kind of boats are they ?—A. Large open boats manned by 
two or three men. 

Q. Do you know the honorable Stanislaus Francois Poirier? He has 
been a leading man in that section and must have been when you were 
there ?—A. No. 

Q. I will just call your attention to his statement and ask you if it 
coincides with what you saw yourself when you were there. By the 
way, I want to draw a distinction between fishing for codfish or halibut 
and for mackerel. Do you mean that these boats fished off 10 miles 
fishing for mackerel, or that you were so informed ?—A. Not all; prin- 
cipally. 

0: Perhaps there is no difference of opinion between you atall. I 
will read his statement from the evidence: 


Q. As a general rule are these fishing-grounds good for mackerel ?—A. They are very 


Q. At what distance from the shore ate the mackerel taken !—A. From the 20th June up 
through July and August until the 20th September the mackerel are all caught within two 
miles of the shore around the portion of the island to which we refer. I have been fishing 
for these 40 years in my own locality and I me safely say that I have never caught mack- 
erel outside of two miles from the shore around there. jade 

«). They were all taken within two miles of the coast ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And your recollection extends over a period of 40 years 7—A. Yes. I was born i 
1823, and i began fishing when I was 12 or 14 years of age. I think I can safely say 
can speak from recollection for forty years back. 


a What do you say to that?—A. What is he speaking about—small 
oats? 

Q. He is speaking of the boats that fish around Tignish. Would you 
venture, from what experience you gained when there, to contradict his 
statement in that respect ?—A. No, sir; I would not venture to contra- 
dict his statement. | 

Q. When you speak of the fishing being very much depreciated during 
the past year, did you refer to the fisheries along the coast of Maine ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. They are almost abandoned, are they not ?+-A. Well, very nearly 
So. 

Q. Your island, I think, is very near the line betwee New Brunswick 
and the State of Maine ?—A. No. 

Q. How far from it ?—A. Perhaps 240 miles. 


-, Q. And you think it has been abandoned because you found there was 


no profit in the business ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The years you were in the gulf yourself, what vessel were you in ?— 
A. The D. R. Proctor, of Deer Island, and the Jane Otis. 
Q. Were you pretty suecessful?—A. Not very; we brought out small 


| trips. 


Q. Where did you fish 7—A. Between Cape St. George and East Point, 
Prince Edward Island; between Port Hood and East Point; bétween 


East Point and the Magdalen Islands, up to the northward of the island, 


on those Banks, Bradley and Orphan. 

Q. Did you try Bay Chaleurs at all 7—A. No. 

Q. Your fishing was at the Magdalens and along the north shore of 
Prince Edward Island, from East Point to the Cape Breton shore ?—A. 
We didn’t go around the Cape Breton shore, not down toward Margaree. 

Q. To Port Hood ?—A. Yes. 

- Q. And your catches were not very large?—A. No. 


2404 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Your experience was not very extensive ?—A. Not very extensive 
in the gulf. 


By Mr. Trescot : 

Q. I think you misunderstood a question of Mr. Davies. He asked 
you about the time you had been at Prince Edward Island. You told 
him you could not recollect the date, but you can say whether it was 
within six, eight, or ten years?—A. I haven’t been there for fifteen 
years; I will venture that. 

Q. Now, with regard to another question. You stated, as I under- 
stand, and as the question I put would lead me to understand, that the 
mackerel fishery of Deer Island has very much diminished. You under- 
stood Mr. Davies to apply to the mackerel fishery in the gulf. I would 
like to know whether, in reply to his question, you meant to say that 
the fisheries all along the coast of Maine have diminished very much ?— 
A. They have; yes, sir. 


By Mr. Davi ies: 


Q. As regards the gulf, you have not been there for 15 or 16 years ?— 
A. No; but our vessels are coming and going there. 

(The witness, being recalled, said he desired to make an explanation 
with regard to a part of his evidence, and proceeded to say that in speak- 
ing of the diminution of the fishing on the coast of Maine he did not 
know anything about the depreciation of the fish in the water on the 
coast, but that he meant to state simply that the business had not been 
so profitable in catching them as formerly.) 


_ By Mr. Davies: ° ; 

Q. The vessels that have engaged in the business have diminished in _ 
number ?—A. Yes. ; » 
Q. And the catches of the vessels that are engaged in the business, 
have they been as large as in former years?—A. No, sir; they have — 
not. : 
No. 39. : 

Wixi14m H. McDona p, of Gloucester, Mass., called on behalf of the ; 


Government ofthe United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. You were born in St. John’s, Newfoundland ?—Answer. 
Yes. 

Q. You live in Gloucester?—A. Yes. 

Q. What business are you engaged in ?—A. Cod-fishing a little, and 
herring-fishing in the winter. 

Q. How long have you been cod-fishing as skipper?—A. Six years. 

Q. You have been fishing on the Grand Bank all that time?—A. Yes. 

Q..Do you take bait with you or purchase it?—A. I am two years 
taking bait from Newfoundland. In previous years I took it from home. 

Q. How do the two systems compare together ?—A. I know I have 
dene nothing atall since I have gone in. I always got fish before. 

Q. Then you have come to the conclusion you won’t goin any longer? 
—A. No; I won't. Be 

Q. What is the trouble ?—A. We lose money by going in. 

Q. Do you recollect what catch you made in the first four years when 
you used salt bait?—A, Yes. The first year we got about 3,700 quin- 
tals; the second year about 3,500; the third year 3,000; last year about 
1 ,800, and this year about 1 400. 


eva S's ee ne le es 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2405 


Q. Do you own your own vessels ?—A. Yes; part of them. 

Q. How do you account for the falling off in y our catches? What was 
the matter?—A. We lost so much time going in. 

Q. How many times did you go in for bait this year?—A. Six times. 

Q. How much time did it take?—A. We lost about three months this 
summer. 

Q. How were you delayed so much ?—A. The bait was scarce. 

Q. How long was the longest time ?—A. About five weeks. 

(. And the shortest ?—A. A week. 

Q. Were you there these five weeks because you could not get bait, 
or were you detained from other causes 2—A. We could not get bait. We 
were going around looking for it. 

Q. Besides the expense of getting bait when you went into Newfound- 
land ports, did you pay light-dues?—A. Yes; here are the bills. (Hands 
in bills paid in 1877, viz: Light-dues, $23.52; harbor-dues, $2.00; water- 
rates, $4.90; pilotage, $22.50. Total, $52 92.) 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. Where do you reside ?—A. At Gloucester. 

@. How long have you resided thére ?—A. Eight years. 

Q. Previous to that you resided at St. John’s, Newfoundland ?—A. 

Yes. 

Q. Six years you have been on the Grand Banks fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What were you doing the other two years?—A. Mackereling in 
the bay. 

Q. Up the gulf?—A. Yes, and down at Prince Edward Island. 

Q. In what vessels ?—A. William Carson and Harvey C. Mackey, 

. You were fishing on the coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes, 
and round by Sydney and Cape Breton. 

Q. Who was the master of the vessel ?—A. John MacMaullin. 

Q. Did you do pretty well there?—A. We did decently well. We got 
290 barrels. 

Q. The first year ?—A. In one trip. 

Q. Did you make a second trip that year ?—A. No. 

Q. The second year, what did you get?—A. Two hundred and fifty 
barrels, more or less. 

Q. You made only one trip?—A. Only one trip. f 

Q. You caught mackerel along the coast of Prince Edward Island and 
the coast of Cape Breton?—A. Yes; not within the limits. We caught 
none within three miles of the land. 

Q. What limits?—A. We caught none within three miles of the land. 

Q. Did you see any other vessels fishing there?—A. Yes, hundreds. 

Q. Were they on the north or south side of the island ?—A. On the 
north side. 

Q. Off what harbors were they fishing ?—A. We fished off Sidney and 
got most there, and off East Point and Souris. We fished all round 
there and at Georgetown Bank. 

Q. You would run in and out again as occasion required ?—A. Yes. 

Q. As long as you found the mackerel, you would run in to land and 
out again ?—A. We never ran in to land for mackerel. 

Q. You went up and down the coast 7—A. Yes. We never caught any 
mackerel inshore. 

Q. What harbors did you enter for shelter ?—A. Charlottetown, George- 
town, and Souris. 

Q. Did you remain long in harbor at any time ?—A. Sometimes four 
or five days. 


2406 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. They are pretty good harbors 7—A. Yes, good harbors. George- 
town and Charlottetown are good harbors. _ - 
Q. Is there any difficulty in entering them in case of a gale of wind?— 


A. No. : 
Q. Then for four years you became master, of what vessel ?7—A. 


Henry A. Johnson. 
. Was that the first year you went to the Banks ?—A. Yes. 

«). Who was the owner of the vessel 7—A. W. Parsons. 

Q. You took your bait from where ?—A. From home. 

Q. From Gloucester ?—A. Yes. P ° 

Q. What bait was it?—A. Salt pogies. 

Q. How many voyages did you make that year ?—A. Three. 

Q. All for salted fish ?—A. Yes. ; 

Q. Did you use no fresh bait at all?—A. We caught squid on the 
Banks. There were plenty of squid on the Banks that year. 

Q. Did you use any other fresh bait besides that squid ?—A. We al- 
ways used small halibut for bait. 

Q. You made three voyages; did you keep a memorandum of the 
catch 7—A. I never did. 

Q. Are you quite sure of the sum total of your catch that year?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. That you took 3,700 quintals in three voyages ?—-A. Yes. 

Q. What was the size of the vessel ?—A. 59 tons. 

Q. The second year were you in the same vessel ?—A. No; in the 
Carrie 8S. Dagle. 

Q. How many voyages did you make ?7—A. Two. 

Q. Did you use any salt bait?—A. We used all salt bait. 

Q. Did you catch no fresh bait on the Banks ?—A. We caught a 
trifling amount of squid. 

Q. And the third year you were in the same vessel 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you make any memorandum of the voyages those two years ?— 
A. No; 1 did not. 

Q. Are you clear that the second year you got 3,500 quintals, and the 
third year 3,000 quintals ?—A. Yes. I got somewhere near 3,000 quin- 
tals the third trip. 

Q. How many trips ?—A. Two. 

Q. And the fourth year what quantity did you catch ?—A. Some- 
where about 2,000 quintals. 

Q. How many trips did you make that year ?—A. Two. 

@. You used salt bait during those four years?—A. Yes. 

Q. Your catch decreased during the four years you were using salt 
bait from 3,700 quintals to 2,000 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And what was the first year you went to the Banks using fresh 
bait?’—A. 1876. ; 

Q. Did you take any salt bait*with you?—A. Yes; a year ago this 
spring I took ten burrels of salt bait, I think. 

Q. Did you make up your first trip with salt bait ?—-A. No. 

Q. How many trips did you make last year?—A. Two. 

Q. Did you get any squid on the first trip on the Banks ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you get any small halibut or other bait —A. We had small 
halibut; we always get them. 

_Q. Having small halibut last yearon the first trip, how wasit that you 
did not complete the trip there ?—A. There was so much fresh bait com- 
ing on the Banks that the fish would not take salt bait. 

Q. There was so large a quantity of fresh bait coming on the Banks, 
you found salt bait no good !—A. No good. 


| 


penn 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2407 


Q. There was a large number of vessels coming from the coast of 
Newfoundland with fresh bait?—A. Last year they mostly got bait 
there. 

Q. All the vessels got fresh bait there last year ?—A. I would not say 
all. 

Q. How large was the fleet with which you were fishing on the 
Banks ?—A. I could not tell you the number of the vessels; it is im- 
possible to tell that. 

Q. Do you remember the number of bankers that went from Glou- 


cester ?—A. I do not. 


Q. You then went in to Newfoundland for bait?—A. Yes. 

Q. And last year was the first time ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. To Fortune Bay. 

Q. In what season of the year ?—A. In June, about first of June. 

Q. Did you ever try to get bait at ports nearer than Fortupe Bay ; at 
ports between Cape Race and Conception Bay ?—A. It was no use, for 
you could not get it at any other place at that time of the year. 

Q. Did you try at any other ?—A. No. 

(. You went to Fortune Bay and got herring ?—A. Yes. 

Q. There was a great number of American vessels in Fortune Bay last 
Spring, catching herring, I believe ?—A. There were not many; I don’t 
know that there was anybody but ourselves when we were there. 

Q. You had no difficulty in getting herring ?—A. No. 

Q. How long did it take you to go in for bait, get herring at Fortune 
pe and return to the Banks?—A. You cannot do it in less than twelve 

ays. 

Q. How long did it take you on that occasion 2—A. About twelve 


‘ days. I never did it in less than one week. 


Q. I am now speaking of the time you went to Fortune Bay, the first 
time you went in, which was last year. How long did it take you to go 
from the Banks to Fortune Bay, get bait, and return to the Banks ?— 
A. About twelve days. 

Q. Are you clear about it ?—A. I am not exactly positive. I did not 
keep alog. I never did it in less than one week, and I know I did not 


do it in that time then. 


Q. Do I understand that the shortest time occupied i in going from the 
i to Fortune Bay and back to the Banks would be one week ?—A. 

es 

Q. Were you in last year any other time except this once ?—A. Yes; 
I was in other parts of Newfoundland. 

'Q. What ?—A. Cape Royal. 

-Q. For squid ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long did it take you on that occasion to go in, get bait, and 
return to the Banks 7—A. Two weeks that time. 

Q. You were all that time at Cape Royal?—A. No; I was not there 


all the time. I was at a place ealled Torbay. We had to leave there 


and go back to Cape Royal. 

Q. You went in Cape Royal first ?—A. Yes. 
Q. How long did you remain there?—A. I went in the morning and 
left in the evening. ; 
Then you went to Torbay ‘A. To St. John’s, to get money. 
Did you enter the port of St. John’s ?—A. Yes. 

. Last year?—A. Yes. 

Did you pay light-dues there?—A. Yes. 
. You went to Torbay ?—A. Yes. 

. And round to Cape Royal?—A. Yes. 


poonee® 


2408 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. After getting your bait at Cape Royal, when you returned there, 
how long did it take you to get out of the Banks ?—A. One day and 
night. 

0. One night going ont ?—A. Yes. I may not have got just to where 
I fished, but I got on the Banks. ; 

Q. On the fishing-ground !—A. Not on the fishing-ground. 

Q. The Banks are all fishing-grounds?—A. No. There are parts 
where you cannot get a fish. : 

Q. Are those the only two occasions you were into Newfoundland for 
fresh bait last year ?—A. I was in three times. 

Q. Where did you go the third time?—A. To Portugal Cove, Con- 
ception Bay. , 

Q. How long did it take you to get there?—A. I went there direct 
from home—from the States. 

Q. That was your second trip?—A. Yes. £ 

Q. Did you go in for bait—squid ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What time of the year?—A. About 12th September. 

Q. You employed the people there to get squid for you immediately 
on your arrival ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And how long was it before they succeeded in supplying your 
wants !—A. It took me about two weeks then. I got on the Banks on 
the 16th September. 

Q. With a fall supply of bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You then got your trip completed—by what time ?—A. We did 
not get anything at all to speak of. We got about 200 quintals. 

Q. And you returned at what time ?—A. We returned home about 
7th November. 

Q. And you were on the Banks from 16th September to 7th Novem- 
ber ?—A. Not exactly all that time. I was in at Newfoundland when 
coming home. ; 

Q. At what time did you leave the Banks ?—A. Eleventh October. 

Q. You staid in Newfoundland from 11th October till when ?—A. 
On 22d October, I think, I started for home. 

Q. You completed your fishing for that season ?—A. Yes. 

Q. This year did you go direct from Gloucester to the Banks, or did 
you go to Newfoundland first for bait ?—A. We went to Newfoundland, 
Fortune Bay, first for bait. 

Q. At what time of the year?—A. We left home about 23d April, 
and got to Newfoundland about Ist May. 

Q. What part of Fortune Bay did you go tofor bait?—A. Long Island. 

Q. Were there many vessels there at that time getting bait 7—A. 
Three or four. aan 

Q. Did you take a seine with you 1—A. No. 

Q. Were any other American vessels there with seines?—A. No 
American vessel ever had a seine there. : 

Q. I am informed that a large number of American vessels went there 
this spring and caught bait themselves.— A. They would not be allowed 
to put a seine in the water there; they would be chopped down. 

Q. Were you ever chopped down ?—A. I never had aseine there, and 
never knew an American vessel with a seine there. 

Q. You have not seen them there ?—A. No; and I have traded there 
all the time in the winter time. 

Q. You have been there for herring in winter ?—A. Yes; during 4 
winters. 

Q. That is, in the months of February and March ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is, for frozen bait ?—A. For frozen herring. 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2409 


Q. Is frozen herring shipped in bulk or in barrels ?—A. In bulk. 

@. You never heard of any being shipped in barrels ?—A. No. 

@. Then if any one said that there were barrels used it would be 
incorrect?—A. Of course; it is not so in winter. - 

Q. Not in Fortune Bay ?—A. No. 

Q. You never heard of such a thing as a’duty being charged on her- 
ring-barrels used for putting frozen herring in?—A. No; I never did. 

Q. We had a witress here the other day who stated that on empty bar- 
rels used for putting herring in a duty was charged.—A. They do pay a 
duty on the barrels into which they put herring, but not frozen herring. 

Q. You never heard of frozen herrings being putin barrels?—A. I 
have seen them put in barrels at Grand Manan, not at Newfoundland. 

Q. Did you get your bait at Newfoundland soon after you went down ? 
—A. No; there was quite a delay this spring before we got bait. 

Q. You got it at Long Harbor ?—A. Yes; it wasveryscarce. It was 
four or five days before we got bait. 

Q. Before you could get the people to catch the bait for you?—A. 
Yes; there was very little there to catch; it was very scarce. 

Q. Then you proceeded to the Banks; did you catch a good trip with 
that quantity of bait ?—A. No. 

Q. How much bait did you take with you ?—A. About 45 barrels. 

@. How much did you pay for it ?—A. $62. 

Q. You fish altogether with trawls, I suppose ?—A. Yes. 

Q. A great number of vessels were fishing round you in the same way 
with trawls ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The large quantity of fresh bait scattered on the fishindagromnds, 
I suppose, has a tendency to keep the fish well on the ground ?—A. The 
Bank fish never go off the grounds and never leave the Banks. There 
is plenty of proof of that. The shore fish of Newfoundland would not 
be liked in the States. 

Q. What is the difference between the shore and Bank fish ?—A. In 
the shore fish the nape is black, and that would not do for our market. 

Q. What is its color in the Bank fish ?—A. White. 

Q. Are they otherwise exactly alike ?—A. No; they are not alike at 
all. What you get inshore are small fish. 

Q. Have you ever fished at the western part of Newfoundland, round 
Fortune Bay and that portion of the coast ?—A. No. 

: Q. Then you have not seen the large fish they take there?—A. Yes; I 
ave. 

(). Have you ever fished off Cape St. Mary’s?—A. Yes. 

4. Are not the fish caught there large fish 7—A. They are large, but 
are not. the same as the Bank fish. A cargo was caught there by one 
of the American schooners six years ago, but it wasnever sold. It was 
caught by one of Mr. Lowe’s schooners. 

Q. There has lately been some of the American vessels fishing at 
St. Mary’s ?—A. I have-not seen any. 

Ress & fish caught off Cape St. Mary’s are not like the Bank fish ?— 
0. 

Q. Are the fish caught at parts of the coast further west like Bank 
- fish ?—A. I never fished further westward than Cape St. Mary’s. 

' Q. You say there is a difference in Bank and shore fish in other re- 
spects than that one has a black nape and the other a white nape ?—A. 
There is a difference in every way. 

Q. In what other respect?—A. The shore fish is not nearly so thick, 
not nearly so fat, and has a black nape. 

Q. Anything else ?—A. No. 


2410 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. They have each the same number of fins ?—A. I suppose so. I 
never counted. 

Q. But you are a great authority on codfish ?—A. Yes; I know about 
codfish. 

Q. You noticed the size and thickness of the fish and the color of the 
nape, and yet you cannot say how many fins they have?—A. No. 

Q. Will you undertake to say that the Bank fish have not got a fin 
over and above the shore fish ?—A. No. . 

Q. Upon getting out on the first trip to the Banks you said you did 
not complete your codfish voyage ?—A. No. 

Q. You came into Newfoundland again ?—A. I came to Fortune Bay 
again. 

. About what time was that ?—A. About the 1st June. 

Q. You got your herring, in how long?—A. It was just exactly two 
weeks till 1 got on the Banks again. 

Q. Did you then complete your voyage ?7—A. No. 

. Did you go in again 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. To Cape Royal. 

Q. To any other place ?—A. No. 

Q. How long were you at Cape Royal ?—A. Just one week going in 
and coming out again. : 

Q. Did you go in again?—A. Yes. 

Q. When ?—A. In July some time. 

Q. Where did you go then ?—A. To Cape Royal again. ' 

Q. Did you go to any other places, or did you get bait there and go 
out again?—A. We went to the Bay of Bulls next time. 

Q. Did you go to any other place besides the Bay of Bulls?—A. No. 

Q. How long were you in there?—A. Something over one week. 
. Were you in after that ?—A. Yes. 
. When ?—A. In August. 
Where did you go?—A. To Saint John’s first. 
. And out again from there ?—A. To Portugal Cove. 
. How long were you there?—A. Over two weeks. _ 
. Did you go in again ?—A. I was in about the last of August. 

Q. Where did you go then?—A. I could not tell you all the places. 
I went to Saint John’s and other places. 

Q. How long were you then?—A. Something over five weeks. 

Q. Did you get bait?—A. We got some salt squid, no fresh squid. 

@. You returned to the Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And did you complete your voyage at the Banks?—A. I am right 
from the Banks going home. ; 

Q. What quantity have you got?—A. 1,500 quintals. 

Q. Just now you said it was 1,400 quintals?—A. It is between 1,400 
and 1,500 quintals. I cannot say exactly. : 

Q. Then you made one trip this year ?—A. Yes. 


SLOLLLO 


Q. That is between 23d April, when you left Gloucester, and the . 


present time ?— A, Yes, one trip. 

Q. Were you not talking a little at random when you said you had 
ae half your time in getting fresh bait?—A. I think I did spend half 
my time. 

Q. I believe all American vessels leaving Gloucester in the spring go 
dele to Fortune Bay, in the first place, to get bait?—A. Not all of 

em. 

Q. The great majority?—A. A good many of them. 

@. On the way to the Banks?—A. Yes, I suppose so. 

Q. And those which do not go into Newfoundland get their bait some- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2411 
where on the Nova Scotia coast ?—A. I don’t know exactly where. I 
suppose they get it somewhere round the shores on their own coast, or 
some other place. 

Q. And you say that the greater number, in fact nearly all American .» 
vessels, went into the Newfoundland coast this year for bait?—A. Yes. 

By Mr. Trescot : 

Q. You say you are on your way home from the Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you get into Halifax ?—A. Last night. 

Q. What brought you here; did you come for a harbor ?—A. Yes. 

@. Have you been in the habit of going to Grand Manan for her. ° 
ring ?—A. I never was there. 

By Mr. Whiteway: 

Q. Do not a great number of American vessels anchor in Freshwater 
Bay instead of going into the Port of St. John’s ?—A. I don’t know. I 
saw a couple anchored there this summer. I anchored in the Narrows 
myself, and was charged for anchoring. 


By Mr. Trescot: 
Q. What were you charged ?—A, Six dollars. I was fined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. What were you fined for?—A. I was fined for anchoring in the 

Narrows. There was no wind, and we could not get in. 
By Mr. Whiteway : 

Q. Were you not obstructing navigation, and was it not the harbor- 
master’s boat which went out to you?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were liable to be fined for obstructing navigation 2—A. There 
were three vessels lying there. There was plenty of room for any other 
vessels to go in. 

Q. And you were ordered out ?—A. We went out. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. You eke about going into Georgetown and Charlottetown Har- 
bors?—A. Y 

Q. They at the southern side of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. 

@. Have you ever been in the harbors on the north side?7—A. No; I 
have been in no harbors except on the south side. 

Q. Are those quiet harbors ?—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. Were you in Fortune Bay in January when you weut for frozen 
herring ?—A. I think on the 2d of January. 


No. 40. 


WiLuiAM A. DIcKEY, of Belfast, Maine, fisherman, called on behalf of 
the Government of the United States, examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. When did you begin to go fishing ?—Answer. I commenced 
in 1858; I went as a hand, as sharesman. 

Q. At that time were there many vessels from Belfast engaged i in the 
fishing business 7—A. Ten or twelve sail. 

Q. Fishing for cod and mackerel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What has become of the mackerel trade and fishermen of Belfast? 


2412 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


—A. There are but two of us who fish for mackerel with vess2ls of any 
size; that is, excepting small vessels. _ ; ' 

Q. Are your mackerel-men now mainly engaged in fishing on the 
American coast —A. They have been for the last six years. 

Q. You went into the bay-fishing in 1853. Do you know for how many 
barrels the vessel fitted ?—A. The vessel fitted for 400 or 500 barrels. 

Q. And you caught how many ?—A. About 270 barrels, I think. 

Q. Did you catch any fish inshore then?—A. I was a boy, a young 
fellow, and I don’t remember particularly. We caught part of them 
inside the lines. We fished inshore and off, but the whole quantity we 
caught inshore I don’t remember. 

Q. In 1859 did you go fishing again ?—A. Yes. 

(. Were you in the bay ?—A. Yes, one trip, late. 

Q. Do you recollect how many you caught 7—A. From one hundred 
and forty to one hundred and fifty barrels. 

Q. Were any of those caught inshore ?—A. That year we fished alto- 
gether at Bank Orphan, or pretty much so. We may have caught a 
few inshore. I cannot say the quantity. 

Q. From 1860 to 1865 where were you fishing ?—A. For those five 
years I was skipper of the same vessel, fishing on our shores. I fished 
for cod one trip in the spring and afterwards on our shores. 

Q. You made one trip in the early spring for cod ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. To Western Banks and Banquero. 

Q. What kind of bait did you have ?—A. Salt clams. 

Q. No fresh bait ?—A. No. 

@. How long were you generally on the Banks ?—A. We generally 
left home 25th or 27th April and got back generally before 4th July. 

Q. And then you went mackerel fishing on your own coast 7—A. On 
our own shores. 

Q. What part of the American shore did you fish on ?—A. We fished 
from Mount Desert Rock to Cape Cod. 

Q. With menhaden bait ?—A. Yes; with salt bait. 

Q. Do you come into port often?—A. We harbor occasionally when 
there is a wind. 

Q. I mean do you land your fish?—A. Yes; we land them whenever 
we get a voyage; sometimes two or three times and sometimes not more 
than twice. 

Q. You could go in often enough to get fresh pogies and menhaden if 
you wished?—A. We never use fresh bait for mackerel, but salt bait 
altogether. 

Q. After 1865 did you go in the bay again?—A. I could not say 
whether the next time was in 1865 or 1866. I know it was the last year 
the treaty was on. 

Q. You had a right then to go where you liked ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you eatch any mackerel inshore ?—A. We caught a few at 
Margaree and at Magdalen Islands that year. We fished some at - 
Margaree. 

Q. Did you make any attempt to fish inside the line?—A. At the 
ent mands chad no fish inside. We were out some distance. 

- Did you know that fact by trying yourself or by reports, or b 
both!—A. We tried in and off shore > yaar 

Q. That year there was no fish inshore?—A. We did not get any in- 
shore at Magdalen Islands. At Margaree we probably fished inshore, 
within two, three, or four miles. 

Q. When did you next go to the bay ?—A. I skipped one or two years. 
{am not certain but that I staid at home and went cod fishing a trip 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2413 | 


and mackereling. The first year after the treaty was up I was at home. 
Iam certain of that. 

Q. You mean you went cod-fishing 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What else did you catch ?—A. I was catching menkaden for oil, Ly 
think, that year. 

Q. “are there plenty of menhaden to be found on your coast?—A. 
Yes. Steamers get each from 25,000 to 26,000 barrels almost every year. 
I think there are 31 steamers this year. 

Q. Where do they take the pogies. Is there a place to manufacture 
the oil near Portland 7—A. There are several of them there, and at Round 
Point and Booth Bay. 

Q. When did you next go into the bay 7—A. 1867 or 1868, I don’t 
know which; 1867, I think, but I could not be certain. 

Q. What dia you catch 2—A. Mackerel. 

Q. How many trips did you make?—A. Two trips; we landed one 
small trip and sent it home. 

Q. What did you catch the first trip ?—A. I think 190 or 200 barrels. 

Q. What did you get the second trip ?—A. About 70 barrels I think 
we carried home. 

Q. Out of those 260 barrels, how much did you catch inshore ?—A. 
We, perhaps, might have caught 40 barrels. We fished some inshore 
and some off shore. We had a license that year. 

Q. Having a license, you tried inshore, did you?—A. Yes, we tried 
inshore; but the fishing was not as good inshore, and there was better 
fishing off shore ; and we got the greater part of them off shore. 

Q. Do you mean there were more fish off shore, or was it in regard to 
their fatness ?—A. There were more off shore. 

Q. You did not catch enough inshore to pay the license 7—A. I don’t 
remember whether we did or not. 

Q. Were you master then ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You tried the inshore fishing ?7—A. Yes; we tried it when we were 
inshore. 

‘Q. Take the next four years, where were you fishing 7?—A. I don’t re- 
member whether I was in the bay next year or not. In 1869 or 1870 I 
think I was in the bay. 

Q. Did you have a license ?—A. No, we had no license then. 

Q. You had a license only one year ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you cod-fishing during the next four years atall?—A. No. 

Q. Only catching mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Generally, where did you catch your fish when you were in the 
bay 7?—A. We caught some at Magdalen Islands, and from Point Miscou 
to North Cape and Bank Bradley. 

Q. During that period of time where did you find your largest and best 
fish ?—A. We fished on what we call the West shore, between Point Es- 
cuminac and northward of North Cape, ten or twelve miles out. Wedid 
the best there, I think. 

Q. During the whole of the four years, where did you find any fish 
inshore? Did you try inshore ?7—A. I was only two of those four years 
in the bay, and the other two I was on our shores; I think in 1869 and 


1870 or 1868 and 1869 I was in the bay. 


Q. During those two years, where did you find your best fishing—with- 
out regard to particular localities—inshore or out ?—A. We found the 
best fishing off shore. We did not find any vessels inshore at all. We 
were in a new vessel, the cutters were there, and we did not try inshore 
at all. We fished at Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Did you find satisfactory fishing ?—We got a fair trip, though we 


2414 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


did not fill all our barrels. We got 215 barrels, I think, one trip, and 
190 barrels the second trip. 

Q. That is pretty good fishing 7—A. Yes, good fishing. i. 

Q. Since 1871 where have you been fishiug ?—A. I have been seining 
on our shores. 

Q. At what parts of the American coast ?—A. From Mount Desert 
Rock to Cape May, Delaware. We commence there in the spring and 
work eastward. ; 

Q. Were you fishing inshore or out or both along the American 
coast _—A. Off shore and inshore. 

Q. How many have you taken there ?—A. We took all the way from 
350 to 1,000 barrels. Last year we had about 1,000 barrels. 

Q. You had good luck on the American coast ?—A. Yes, we have had 
good fishing there for five or six years. 

Q. How has it been this year ?—A. There was good fishing early this 
year, in May, south. Since then there has been very little done. 

Q. At what time did you come into the bay this year?—A. 10th Au- 

St. 
ar Are you in Halifax with your vessel ?—A. Yes. 

«). For a harbor ?—A. We came into harbor last night. 

Q. You did not come to Halifax as a witness ?—A. No. 

Q. Were you homeward bound when you made Halifax?—A. Yes. 

. How many barrels have you got?—A. From 118 to 120 barrels. 

Q. During all the time you have been cod-fishing, you say you have 
gone to the Banks in spring and to your own coast in summer; have 
you been in for fresh bait ?--A. We did not used to go in for bait then. 
I have not been cod-fishing the last nine years or longer. 

Q. While you were fishing you used salt bait altogether ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know anything about weir and pound fishing on the coast 
of Maine ?—A. I never was engaged in weir or pound fishing. 

Q. You have seen it?—-A. I have seen a number of pounds. 

Q. And heard about it?—A. I have heard there is a considerable 
quantity taken. 

Q. You cannot give any account of it ?—A. No. 

By Mr. Doutre: 


Q. How many times have you been in the bay ?--A. About six or 
seven times. 

(. Six or seven different seasons or trips ?—A. Different seasons. 

Q. And sometimes you went two trips in one season ?—A. We have 
landed and sent home a trip, but I have never been home and back 
on a second trip. ; 

Q. Where did you land any trip ?—-A. We landed a trip the first year 
I was in the bay at Cascumpeque. That is about 19 years ago. 

Q. st did those fish reach home ?--A. They were shipped home by 
a vessel. : 

(). Have you ever fished on the coast of Gaspé?—A. I never fished 
on the coast of Gaspé. I have been there twice. _ 

Q. You never tried to fish there 7—A. No. 

_ Q. Why did you go there if you did not intend to fish ?—A. We went 
into Gaspé from Bonaventure for water. We fished broad off on Bona- 
venture Bank, about southeast, 40 or 50 miles. 

Q. Was the Gaspé coast nearest ?—A. There was not much difference 
between that and North Cape, I think. 

Q. Do you ever fish in Bay Chaleurs?—A. I never fished there, but 
I have laid inside of the point about Shippegan. We caught a few 
mackerel there one year. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2415 © 


Q. How far from the shore ?—A. From two to five or six miles. 

@. Do you remember the number of barrels you caught there ?—A. 
We caught one day off Shippegan, I think, 25 barrels. 

Q. Did you ever fish in the Bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Very,* 
little. I heaved to twice off Cascumpeque. I never liked the place to 
fish. 

Q. Did you not find fish there ?—A. Not many. 

Q. How far from the coast were you when you tried?—A. We tried 
inside of two miles and from that to seven or eight miles off. 

Q. Did you fish on the coast of Cape Breton ?—A. Very little; a 
very little at Margaree. 

Q. How far from Margaree were you when you fished ?—A. Probably 
from one mile to four or five miles off. 

Q. Is that a good place for mackerel ?—A. It isa good place some- 
times in the fall. It used to be some years ago. 

Q. In what portion of the year did you fish there, fall or summer ?— 
A. I fished there a little while in summer the year I was there. 

Q. How many barrels did you catch there ?—A. I might have caught 
20 or 25 barrels there. I was probably there three or four or two or 
three days. 

Q. You have fished at the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes; round the 
Magdalen Islands parts of two years. 

Q. How far from the coast did you find the mackerel?—A. The years 
we were there we got them ten or twelve from the islands—the main 
body of the fish. 

Q. None nearer?—-A. Some we got within two or five miles, all the 
way from three to fifteen miles, but we fished principally ten or twelve 
miles off. That was in 1865. 

Q. Where did you go to fish for cod?—-A. We went on Western 
Banks and Banquero. 

Q. Did you take your bait with you?—A. Yes. 

Q. You did not buy any?—A. No; we carried salt clams when I 
went. 

Q. How long ago is that ?—A. I have not been for nine or ten years. 

Q. Do you mean to say you never fished for mackerel otherwise than 
With salt bait?—-A. No; we never use fresh bait as heave bait. We 
use mackerel to put on our jigs, but for trawl uae we use salt bait al- 
together. . 

Q. When you fish on your own coasts, do you ‘fish with salt bait ?— 
A. Yes; for mackerel we do. 

Q. Is not fresh bait better ?—A. No, I don’t know that itis. I never 
used it very often; not for mackerel. 

Q. At North Cape what quantity did you take within two or three 
miles of the shore ?—A. We fished about 12 miles to the northward of 
North Cape. 

Q. Was that the nearest point to North Cape you fished ?—A. We 
have fished nearer than that. We have tried all the way from inshore 
to out, but-the principal part of the fish we caught out to the north, ex- 
cept this year, when we fished pretty handy in. 

@. You have come in from the bay ?—A. We have been in the bay 
this year. 

Q. Where did you catch your fish ?—A. This year we caught the prin- 
cipal part of our fish from Escuminac to Port Hood. ‘We fished some 
from West Cape to North Cape; we caught.a few fish at East Point, and 
a very few at Port Hood. 

Q. How far from the shore ?—A. We caught half, nearly half, I should 


2416 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


say, inside of two or three miles; some within one mile, and from that 
out to eight miles. : 

Q. You caught half of them within those distances from the shore ?— 
A. I should say that this year we got one-half our fish inside of two or 
three miles of the shore. 

(. How long did it take you to catch those 120 barrels 7-—A. We 
went through Canso on 10th of August, and have been fishing ever 
since. 

Q. Did you ever try fishing round Canso?—A. We tried as we went. 
We tried off Port Hood a couple of days. At East Point we tried, and 
went from there to North Cape and tried there, and got a few mackerel, 
and we went from there to Escuminac and back again. 

Q. Try to remember where you caught your fish this year, and tell the 
Commission exactly what proportion you took within three miles of the 
shore ?—A. I think about one-half. 

Q. Not more than one-half?—A. I think not more than one-half. Our 
best fishing was off Escuminac. We struck the fish when we were within 
sight of the top of the light, eight or ten miles out. We got fifty or 
sixty barrels off there the first week ; we caught nearly all of these out- 
side of three miles. We worked in, and the last few days we were in the 
bay we were inside of three miles. I think we took 30 or 40 barrels out 
of those 50 or 60 outside. 

Q. How many men composed your crew ?—A. Twelve. 

Q. Was any British subject on board?—A. Yes; we had one. 

Q. Did you leave him at home, or have you got him still with you ?— 
A. We took him from home, and we have him now. 

Q. What is his name ?—A. Lawrence Landerkin. 

Q. Is he from Canso?—A. No; he belongs to Newfoundland. 

Q. Where did you take him ?—A. I shipped him in Portland. 

Q. Did you see other American fishing-vessels while you were there? 
' —A. Yes; there have been quite a number. 

Q. How many did you see there together ?—A. We saw all the way 
ag three to fifty-odd sail; American vessels and several English ves- 
sels. 

Q. And they fished like you, inside, when they could find fish, and 
also outside ?—A. They all fished together, inside and out. . 

Q. And they took about the same proportion, one-half of their catches 
inshore ?—A. Yes; -about the same. 

Q. Do you think you did not take three-quarters of your catch in- 
shore !—A. Not this year, or any other year. . 

Q. Other years what was the proportion?—A. I think we caught 
about three-quarters outside, and this year we caught fully one-half in- 
side, or near about that. I kept no particular account of them, because 
it did not matter to me one way or the other. 

@. You say you saw about 50 sail fishing there?—A. There were 
about 50 sail one day, and the rest of the time 3, 5, or 8, along there. 

Q. They have all taken tolerably good catches ?--A. No; they have 
all done very slimly, or the greater part of them. 


Q. You admit that you have not been very lucky ?—A. We have . 


done about an average of the fleet, I should say. 
; Q. And the other vessels have done about the same as you?—A. 
Some have got more and others have not got one-half or one-fourth. 
Some have got double what we did. 

(. And some, I suppose, three times what you did ?—A. Some ves- 
sels which went in early have got double what [ have; but some which 
went in when I did have not got more than half. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2417 


Q. Did you hear of any vessels having 300 or 400 barrels ?—A. No; I 
have not heard of vessels having 400 barrels. I heard of a vessel hav- 


ing 290 barrels. She is a large vessel and had a crew of 17 men, and *y 


had been in the bay all summer. 

Q. Do you know the schooner Lettie ?—A. I know the schooner Let- 
tie belonging to Charlottetown. 

Q. Do you know Captain Macdonald ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know how many barrels the Lettie caught ?—A. No. I do 
not. 

Q. Did you see her fishing with you?—A. I don’t remember seeing 
her this year. 

Q. Have you not heard fr shermen that she caught 500 barrels?— 
A. I have not heard anythi ut it. 

Q. Have you seen any British vessels on the American coast fishing 
this year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many have you seen ?—A. I did not see but one. 

@. Do you remember her name ?—A. No. I recollect seeing one. 

Q. Do you know the name of her captain 7—A. No. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. This year, 1877, you think you have given a fair trial to inshore 
fishing ?—A. Yes; we had a good trial of it, I think. . 

Q. You did your best with it?—A. Yes; we tried inshore. 

Q. You caught from 118 to 120 barrels fishing inshore and outside ?— 
A. Yes. 

(). And how many packed barrels will they make ?—A. They will 
probably pack one hundred and seven or one hundred and eight. , 

Q. How much did the vessel fit for ?—-A. We only fitted for 200 bar- 
rels this fall trip. 

Q. As a commercial and money matter, is that bad or good ?—A. It 
is a poor trip. 

Q. A losing one ?—A. It is losing money. 

Q. Will it be a pretty considerable loss ?—-A,. For the time we were 
catching them, not much loss, but no money. _ 

Q. It will not pay ?—A, It will not pay. Fishing- will not pay any- 
where this year, I guess. 

Q. Were there any places where there was reported to be good inshore 
fishing which you did not try?—A. The boats have done very well in- 
shore, anchored, but we could not fish among them. The boats have 
done very well at Miminegash, Prince Edward Island, this year. They 
have done as well as they have done for some time. The boats at Cas- 
cumpeque have done very slimly this year, I have been told. The boats 
fish inshore to an anchor. 

Q. Was there any place where vessels went dishore which was re- 
ported to you to have good fishing that you did not try?—A. I did not 
see or hear of any. 

Q. Is there any place where vessels went where they have done well 


_ inshore 7—A. I have not heard of it. The principal part of the fish this 


year has been caught inshore, as nigh as I can judge. 
~ Q. Do you know by direct report or otherwise of any vessels fishing 
inshore or off shore that have done well this year?—A. Some vessels 
that went early got good, fair trips; 5 or 6 vessels did that went in the 
bay in July; but those are the only ones | have heard of. Nothing was 
done since we went in; the vessels did not do anything in August. 

Q. You said, in answer to one of the counsel, that you did not like 
the bend of the island. Why is this the case 1A. Lhave not made a 


152 F 


2418 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


practice of fishing there, any longer than with a good wind we could go 
from one end of it to the other, going or coming. 

Q. What is the reason?—A. It is because it is a bad place, and I did 
not like to stop there. It is well enough, however, close to North Cape 
aud East Poiut, where you can watch your chance to get round when 
there comes a northeaster. 


By Mr. Doutre: 

Q. I understand that your catch this year was an average one?—A. 
I think we got an average with the American fleet, as far as I have heard. 
Mr. Murray, of the custom-house at Canso, said that we had an average, 
or more than an average, with the American fleet. 

@. Do you not think that you came pee: late fishing to, and have 
come rather early from the bay 7—A. id not see any prospect of 
catching anything when I left, and so I thought I would come home. 
Something may yet be done though. 

Q. Is it not to your knowledge that the mackerel generally come in in 
abundance later than this date ?—A. No; notof late years. I have not, 
during the last 5 or 6 years, heard of much being done late in the sea- 
son in the bay. 

Q. What is the quality of the mackerel which you have taken this 
year ?—A. Well, they run rather poor; thay are mostly 2s, and thin 
mackerel. They have not had much food; they are not fat. 

Q. What proportion is number ones ?—A. I do not think one-quarter, 
if that. They, however, may be so this year, since mackerel are scarce. 

Q. What do you expect to get for number ones ?—A. About $16 or 
$18. I hear that they are worth that, but [ do not know. 

Q. Have you not heard that No. 1 mess mackerel are bringing $22 ?— 
A. We have no mess mackerel; we did not mess any; and we have 
very few fit for mess. 

By Sir Alexander Galt: 
: Q. Did you fish with seines or hand-lines ?—A. We fished with hand- 
ines. 

Q. Were many American vessels fishing with seines this year in the 
gulf ?—A. I did not see any use them, though a number had seines. : I 
have not seen a school in the bay. 

Q. When you spoke of menhaden-fishing, you spoke of a number of 
steamers being employed in it?—A. Yes. 

@. How far from the coast do these steamers take menhaden ?—A. 
They go sometimes 8 or 10 miles off, and sometimes inside of the islands 
and among the islands. 

Q. Do they take menhaden with purse-seines ?—A. Yes. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : 


Q. Do you generally seine for mackerel when they school ?—A. Yes. 
@. Do you do so at any other time ?—A. No. 


No. 41. 


ELVARADO GRAY, seaman and fisherman, of Brooksville, Me., was 
called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn, and 
examined. 4 

By Mr. Foster: 


Question. You are a skipper of a Gloucester vessel ?—Answer. Yes. 
Q. What is the name of your vessel ?—A. Plymouth Rock. 
Q. How old are you’—A. Twenty-eight. — 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2419 


Q. How many years have you been skipper ?—A. Eight years, or 9 
seasons. I have been skipper since I was 19. 

Q. Since you have been skipper you have been engaged in the Bank 
cod fishery 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ever make mackerel trips in the bay?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many?—A. Four. 

Q. During what years?—A. In 1866 I was there for two trips. 

Q. You were then very young?—A. Yes. I was not master at the 
time. 

Q. What was the name of the schooner you were in that year 7—A., 
The Reunion. 

Q. What was her captain’s name ?—A. Harvey Conroy. 

Q. Did you take the firsttrip home to Gloucester that year?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you get in the bay that year? 
—A. About 600 barrels. 

Q. You have no means of telling the number accurately?—A. No; I 
could not say for a certainty. 

Q. Being a boy you did not have an interest in this matter like a 
skipper ?—A. That is very near the number—600 barrels. It is not it 
to a pound, but it is near enough. 

Q. Where were they caught?—A. The biggest part was taken on 
Banks Bradley and Orphan. 

Q. Were any of them caught within the 3-mile limit ?—A. I do not 
remember of heaving to within three miles of land that year. 

Q. When were you next in the gulf?—A. I would not say for certain 
but I think it was in the fall of 1870. 

Q. What was the name of your schooner that year 1A. | Henry L. 
Phillips. 

Q. Were you skipper ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long were you in the gulf?—A. We got in there miaesine 
about the middle of September, I think, and were there till sometime in 
October. 

«. What did you catch ?—A. Something like 60 barrels. 

Q. What had you been doing during the previous part of the year ?— 
A. Banking, on the Grand Banks. 

Q. Where did you get these 60 barrels ?—A. Scattered all over the 
bay. There were no fish in the bay that year. - 

Q. When were you again in the bay ?—A. In 1872 I think on a fall 
trip. 

Q. What was your schooner’s name?—A. George Clark. I was 
captain. 

Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. 70, I think. 

Q. Where did you take them ?—A. The bigger part we got at the 
Magdalen Islands and the rest scattered through the bay. 

Q. When were you next there ?—A. In 1873, in the George Clark, on 
a fall trip. 

Q. What did you catch ?—A. 90 barrels, I think. We caught the 
bigger part of them at the Magdalen Islands, and the rest scattered 
through the bay. While I was in the bay I will say that we never got 
a barrel of mackerel within three miles of land. 

Q. The first year, when you made two trips, you were there for the 
season ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the last three years you made fall trips ?—A. Yes. 

(. After you had been cod- -fishing elsewhere ?7—A. Yes. 


2420 _ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What have you done since 1873 ?—A. In 1874 and 1875 I was on 
our coast. ; 

Q. And what have you been doing in 1876 and 1877?—A. Banking. 

Q. Where ?—A. At the Grand and Western Banks, 

Q. What is the name of the vessel of which you are skipper now 7— 
A. The Plymouth Rock. 

Q. You were in the same vessel last year ?—A. No, I was then in the 
schooner Knight Templar. 

Q. How have you provided yourself with bait for Bank fishing last 
year and this year ?—A. I took fresh bait from Gloucester this season in 
the spring. My first trip was made to Western Bank ; I also used fresh 
bait last year. 

Q. What did you take for bait?—A. F n herring, from Gloucester. 

Q. Did you obtain any other bait ?—A. Yes, we went to St. Andrew’s 
Bay, on the American side, and baited the second time. 

Q. Where is that 7—A. About Eastport. 

Q. What bait did you get there ?—A. Fresh herring. 

Q. What did you do after you made your trip to the Western Bank ?7— 
A. We went to Newfoundland direct from Gloucester then. 

Q. You did not provide yourself with bait at home ?—A. No, we went 
to Fortune Bay and bought herring, putting them in ice. 

Q. How often have you been to Newfoundland to buy bait this year 7— 
A. Four times. . 

Q. Have you ever caught any herring there 7?—A. No. 

Q. Or caplin 7—A. No. 

. Have you ever obtained either save by purchase?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever get squid there 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How ?—A. We bought them. 

Q. Has there been any squid taken on your vessel ?—A. Yes, when 
Banking. 

Q. Under what circumstances ?—A. It is like this: when we go to New- 
foundland and bait is plentifulit pays us better to buy it,.and then go 
on our trip, than to try and catch it ourselves, thus losing time, and when 
squid are scarce, we catch a few, and help to make up what we want so 
as:to save time; that is our only object in catching them ourselves. 

Q. Are your men at leisure to fish for squid?—A. No. 

Q. What do they do at this time?—A. They have water to fill in, 
and ice to get; and as soon as the bait comes alongside, we have to use 
the men to hoist it on board. 

Q. When do your men ever catch bait ?—A. At nights. 

Q. How many squid in all do you suppose your vessels ever jigged or 
took —A, At the outside, 20 barrels in 2 seasons—last year and this 
year. 

Q. How long does it take you to goin from the Banks to Newfound- 
land, obtain bait and return to your fishing grounds?—A. <A fair aver. 
age time would be about a week, 

Q. What is the longest time ?—A. Nine days, to my knowledge. 

Q. And the shortest ?—A. Five days, I think. 

Q. What did your bait cost in Newfoundland this year ?—A. The 
whole thing, port charges and all cost me about $400 on the last trip. 

Q. Did you have these bills, I now hand you, to pay?—A. Yes.. 

Q. What are they for 1—A. This one, $4.80, was for water rates. I 
cannot tell you what it is for, Tamsure. We have to pay them whether 
hang in with water or not. It isa government bill. It rates 5 cents 


Q. What is the next for?’—A. Light dues; it amounts to $23.04. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - GAS. 


Q. How much is that a ton ?—A. 24 cents, on 96 tons. 

Q. Pass right on to the next.—A. Well, the next is a harbor master’s 
bill—tor fees. 

Q. What is it for?—A. I do not know unless it is for the trouble of* 
anchoring in the harbor. It is a bill we have to pay in St. John’s every 
time we anchor, and go out and in; it amounts to $2. 

Q. Pass right along to the next.—A. The next bill is for anchorin gand 
clearing and soon. 

Q. How much is it 7—A. I do not see any amount here. I do not 
know whatitis. I do not know but what it is included in the water rate. 
It is a government concern. 

Q. It is not carried out ?—A. No. 

Q. Ido not see any pilottge charge; how does that happen ?—A. 
Well, the trouble there is, when the ey speak us, and they are sure to do 
that, "because they lie right in the niouth of the harbor, and you cannot 
goin by them without they speak you—for they are right in the door- 
yard—you are obliged to pay full pilotage whether you take them or 
not; and so we took one, of course. 

Q. Is there a pilotage bill there ?—A. No. 

Q. How does that happen ?—A. We had a pilots but he took us in 
and ran us on Cod Rock, and so 1 did not pay him anything. I told him 
if he would pay me the ‘damage done my vessel I would pay pilotage 
fees, and so as he did not pay for the damage done the vessel, 1 did not 
pay pilotage—hence I have not got any Dill. 

Q. Otherwise you would have paid pilotage fees ?—A. Exactly so. 

Q. The whole bills of the trip amounted to $400?—A. bal port 
charges and all. 

Q. What do you think as to the difference between fresh sud salt 
bait ?—A. Well, I think we would be just as well off if we had nothing 
to do with fresh bait; but in order to get a share of the fish now, I 
think that we have got to have fresh bait. But if all used salt bait, we 
could do just as well. We always used to get good trips with salt bait 
and shack before fresh bait was introduced. 

Q. What was then used for salt bait ?—A. Clams, and porgies, apd 
herring and squid sometimes. 

Q. Did you use to obtain squid on the Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you do so now ?—A. They are scattered and not so plentiful 
there as they used to be. 

Q. Is the squid a fish whose presence can be regularly depended on, 
or is its presence uncertain and migratory ?—A. Well, there are places 
where you are sure to get them on the Newfoundland coast. 

Q. What about squid on the American coist 7—A. I know they are 
found there. 

Q. Whereabouts ?—A. I have seen them around the coast of Maine. 

Q. Are they found south of Cape Cod ?—A. Yes. They come there 
sometimes in May, and are caught in weirs, &e. 

Q. In great abundance ?—A, I think not, but I do not know much 
about this. 

Q. What proportion of the business of Gloucester is engaged in the 
cod fishery and what proportion in the mackerel fishery, as far as you are 


‘able to judge ?—A. I should say that two-thirds are engaged in the Bank 


fishery and one-third in the mackerel and herring fisheries. 

Q. What proportion does the herring bear, compared with the mack- 
erel fishery ?—A. One-half, I should think. 

@. Do they catch or buy herring ?—A. So far as my knowledge goes, 


2422 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


they have always bought herring. I have never been on a herring trip, 
but I understand that this is the case. : 

Q. When you speak of one-sixth of the business of Gloucester being 
engaged in the mackerel fishery, do you refer to the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence mackerel fishery 7—A. I should say that is for the whole thing. 

Q. Do you know about the mackerel fishery on the coast of the United 
States [—A. I did not think about it; for the last two or three years 
most of the mackerel have been caught on our own coast. You all 
know that as well as I do. 

Q. You said that your average time spent in getting bait was 7 days ?— 
A. About a week. 

By Mr. Weatherbe: » 

Q. You fished in the Reunion in 1866?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is the first time you went fishing ?—A. O, no; but that is 
the first time I was in the bay. I have fished since 1861, when I was 
11 years old. 

Q. Where did you then fish ?—A. On the Grand Banks. 

Q. You did very well in the bay in 1866?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Why did you not stick to the Reunion ?—A. When it comes fall 
we make a change. Our mackerel season is up in the fall. I went two 
trips to the bay in her. 


By Mr. Foster: 

Q. Do you know anything about the herring business at Grand Ma- 
nan ?—A. Yes; but very little. 

@. Have you been there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When?—A. Last spring and this year; but I did not take any 
bait there. I took bait, however, last season at Bliss Island. 

Q. Do you know of any catch of herrings being made by Americans 
in that vicinity ?—A. No; there has never been one to my knowledge. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 

Q. Do you know where the Reunion went in 1867?—A. No; she had 
then changed masters. 

. Who was she owned by ?—A. William Henry Steele, then, I think. 

(. Of Gloucester ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it the custom of Gloucester fishermen to remain in the employ 
of the same owners ?—A. No; they change about. 

Q. Constantly 7—A. Yes. 

Q. The rule is to change about ?—A. I do not know about that, but 
they do so. 

Q. What is the usual practice ?—A. To make changes. 

Q. Do they remain with the same owners year after year ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know what the Reunion caught in 1867 ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you then make any inquiries about her?—A. No. 

Q. Do you not hear what catches vessels make?—A. We do pretty 
well when we attend to our own business. 

Q. You are not able to state the catches of other vessels ?—A. No. 

Q. Or to give any information in this respect save for your own ves- 
sel?!—A. No. . 

Q. Most of the fishermen would be likely to know only what their 
own vessels did !—A. They will do pretty well if they know that. 

©. Some fishermen frequent certain places in the bay and others 
other places ?—A. Yes. 
; @. And some always go to the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes ; that 
$ 80. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2423 — 


Q. And others to the bend of the island ?7—A. Yes. 

@. Then you would not be able to tell what others did?7—A. No. 

Q. Have you ever met Charles W. Dunn, a fisherman, who has fre- 
quently fished in American vessels ?—A. I have met a man named.» 
Peter Dunn, but I do not know any Charles Dunn. 

Q. He deposes: 

That in 1870, I was about two months and a half fishing in the gulf, in the Reunion, 
during which time we got four hundred and thirty barrels of mackerel. She was sev- 
enty-four tons and carried fifteen hands. 

A. Yes; but I thought she was sold out in California before that time. 

Q. You do not remember her fishing that year?—A. No; I know 
nothing about it at all. 

Q. He continues: 

That in 1871, 1 was in the Rambler for eight weeks, fishing in the gulf. We took 
out two hundred and eighty barrels of mackerel. We came into the gulf late that 
season. She was sixty-three tons, and that time carried thirteen hands. 

That fully three-quarters of the fish taken in these schooners were taken close to the 
shore, or within three miles along thisisland, Miscou, Bay Chaleur, the Magdalens, and 
other places on the British coasts. Taking the season through, the inshore fishing is 
the best. I believe that it would not be at all worth while to fit out for this gulf if 
the vessels were not allowed to fish inshore. 


Q. Had you a license when in the bay ?—A. No. 

Q. You know nothing about the cutters?—A. Yes; when I was there, 
in ag there were cutters in the bay. There were plenty of cutters, but 
no fish. 

Q. When there were plenty of cutters in the bay there were no fish 
for Americans 7—A. Yes; that is probable ; but—— 

Q. Do you want to explain that any further ?—A. Just so; but the 
Nova Scotian vessels had the same trouble, too. 

Q. Were they kept out?—A. The Nova Scotian vessels did not do 
any better than our own vessels. That is between you and me. 

ne We want to know about it—A. That is the idea, and the true 
thing. 

Q. That is just what we want to come at and ascertain.—A. Yes; go 
er 
Q. If you have any information to give about it. Were they kept out 

of the 3-mile limit ?—A. No. 
Q. Were you?—A. Yes; we were. 


Q. Constantly ?—A. But there were no fish inshore or offshore. 
| ¢ Q. Were you kept constantly outside of the 3-mile limit ?—A. Well, 
| no; I could not say that we were constantly, because the cutters would 
not be in sight all the time, of course. 
a What vessel were you in then?—A. The George Olark; year 
Q. When the cutters were out of sight, would you steal inside of the 
3-mile limit?—A. No; we would not. 
Q. You did not try to go in?—A. No. 
Q. You never fished inside of the 3-mile limit?—A. No. 
Q. You never hove to inside of the three-mile limit?—A. No; I do 
not think that I ever did so in my life. Of courseif there had been any 
_ fish inshore or any inducement for us to go in we would have done so, 
Q. And you never tried inshore in your life ?—A. I never did; no. 
Q. You never heard of three-quarters of the fish being taken witbin 
the three-mile limit, as mentioned in O. W. Dunn’s deposition ?—A. Yes; 
I have heard tell of vessels fishing inshore. 
Q. And making large catches ?—A. No; I never heard that. 


i ~a 


2424 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. If you had you would have gone in and tried ?—A. I think it is 


likely 1 would if I knew that there were plenty of fish inshore. 

Q. If you had ever heard evidence like that I mentioned, you would 
have gone in and given the inshore fishery a trial ?—A. Well, I knowa 
little more about that matter than the man who made that statement. 

Q. Would you have done so or not ?—A. Well, of course if there were 
fish inshore and we knew it and had a chance to catch them we proba- 
bly would do so. 

Q. If you heard a hundred men swear what I have mentioned, would 
you do so ?—A. If I heard men swear to a lie and [ knew it, that would 
be no temptation to me. 

Q. But you would certainly be open to conviction 7—A. O, yes. 

(. 1f a hundred men so swore, would you be induced to give it a trial?— 
A. That would depend on circumstances. 

Q. If you had a license, how much persuasion would have induced 
you to give the inshore fishery one trial?—A. If I was going to fish in- 
shore, I would have gone the right way about it and obtained a license. 

Q. Do you not think you are a little prejudiced about this matter ?7— 
A. No. 

Q. What prejudice have you against those shores of ours ?—A. None. 

@. And you never once tried inshore ?7—A. No, not in the bay. 

Q. So of course you cannot speak about this fishery from your own 
knowledge ; you must have some sort of prejudice in this regard ?—A. 
Mt is the use of our going to try for fish where we know there are no 

sb. 

Q. Precisely, but you did not know; how did you find out ?—A. Were 
not the boats fishing right along as we went along the shore, and we 
could see whether they were getting fish or not. The boats were strung 
all around the shore. 

Q. Now you are telling us something.—A. Yes; I am glad of it. 

Q. How many thousand boats fished inside the three-mile limit around 
Prince Edward Island !—A. I do not know, but I know that a great 
many boats fished around the coast. ; 
: Q. How much did these boats catch, on the average ?—A. I do not 

now. . 

Q. Did you ever try to ascertain?’—A. No. “? 

Q. Did you ever make inquiries respecting this matter ?—A. No.” 

Q. Have you any idea respecting it !—A. No. 

Ps Do you know from personal observation what they caught ?—A. 
No. 
Q. And yet you never tried inshore?—A. Not within the three-mile 


limit. 

Q. The cutters never gave you any trouble ?—A. No; their men only 
boarded us and told us that we were not allowed to fish within three 
miles of the shore. 

Q@. And you obeyed the order ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How far did you ever go inshore to fish ?—A. Well, probably 
within five or six miles of land. 

Q. Have you any preference as to fishing six miles off, over four miles 
off !—A. Well, of course there is no way for us to tell the exact distance. 

Q. Have you any such preference 7—A. Of course not. 

Q. Is five miles off any better than four and a half miles for fishing 
purposes ?—A. That does not amount to anything with me. We fish 


were we find fish. We catch them five miles offshore and ten miles off 
when the fish are there. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2425 


Q. If the fish were three and a half miles off shore, you would have no 
objection to catch them there ?—A. Not in the least. 

Q. Have you any choice as to distance ?—A. No. 

Q. You think that five miles off is better than three and a half miles 
for fishing ?—A. It does not make any odds, 

Q. You think there is no difference between them ?—A. It does not 
make any odds where we find the fish. 

Q. Do you think 5 miles off is a better distance to fish at than three 
and a half miles, as a usual thing 7—A. I could not say. 

Q. Or better than 6, 7, or 8 miles off ?—A. I could not say. 

Q. Or 10 miles oft ?—A. I do not know any limit to it ;. there is none, 
as far as I can see. 

Q. You don’t know of there being any difference between three and 
a half miles and 15 miles off for fishing ?—A. No, we catch the fish 
out of sight of land sometimes, on Banks Orphan and Bradley. 

Q. And sometimes you make bad voyages there ?7—A. The best voy- 
age | ever made was out of sight of land. 

“Q. We have had a good many bad years and failures through fishing 
out of sight of land ; we have heard of men failing year after year there, 
and yet they never tried to fish inshore, although they heard that there 
was good fishing inshore 7—A. Well, I do not think it. 

Q. Do you not think that you are mistaken in——A. O, no. 

Q. What about ?—A. The fishing. 

Q. What about the fishing ?—A. Well, what you were speaking about 
—the limit. 

Q. You said you had no choice about the limit, and that three and : 
half miles offshore was as good for fishing as 15 miles off.—A. Yes; 
don’t see any difference. 

Q. But thisis what I was going to observe: you might be mistaken 
about it; I am quite sure that there is a mistake; you said you had 
done better outside the three-mile limit than—what 7—A. Yes. When 
I was in the bay in 1866, and that was the only year [ did anything at 
‘all in the bay. 

Q. You did better outside than what ?—A. In 1866 we caught all the 
mackerel I ever saw taken in the bay to amount to anything, and they 
were got offshore. 

Q. You were in the bay in 1870, 1872, and 1873 7—A. We were there in 
1872 and 1873. 

Q. In 1870 you were in the Henry L. Phillips as skipper ?—A. ThenI 
was there in 1870 and 1872. 

Q. And-1873 also, for you were four years in the bay ?—Well, all 
right. . 

Q. Besides 1866. Is that not correct?—A. Yes. Then I was five 
trips in the bay instead of four. 

Q. And in 1870 you only caught 60 barrels ?—~A. I think so. 

Q. And only 70 barrels in 1872 ?—A. I think so. 

Q. And only 90 barrels in 1873?—A. Yes. 

Q. It was-an utter failure?—A. Pretty much so. That was in the 
fall, after we got home from the Banks. 

Q. That was a failure ?—A. Yes. 

- Q. Can you give us any earthly reason why you did not try inshore 
after 1870 ?—A. It was because there were no fish inshore. 

Q. I thought you had done well enoughand better outside 7—A. You 

misunderstood me this time. 

Q. Then you do not say that the fishing was better outside ?—A. 


2426 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


There was no fishing in the bay in those years that amounted to any- 
thing inside or outside. : 

Q. Bat you told us you did not know anything about anybody’s 
catches except your own?—A. Yes. , 

Q. And you did not ask the men in the boats or make the slightest 
inquiry about what was caught inshore?—A. How do you know? 

Q. You told us you made no inquiries of what the boats did.—A. Ex- 
cuse me, [ do not think I told you any such thing. You asked me how 
I knew, and I told you I could see the boats fishing around the shore. 

Q. I asked you if from personal observation you could tell what they 
caught, and you said you had enough to mind your own business. 
Have you made any mistake? Explain——A. All I came here for was 
to give a fair account of what I know about the fisheries—and if you 
understood it as I do you would understand what I mean—and that is 
what I am doing. I have no prejudice in this matter. When we were 
in the bay for mackerel it was easy enough for us to find out whether 
there were any mackerel inshore or offshore. Pleuty of vessels and 
boats were trying, and if there were no mackerel along the coast it is 
not likely that without any inducement we would make ourselves liable 
for seizure. It is easy enough to discover whether the fish are inshore 
or not by running along it and looking at the boats. We can tell 
whether a man is catching fish or not by looking at him without asking 
a question; and by running along the coast and looking at the boats we 
can see for ourselves. 

Q. Did you ever make any inquiries as to the catch of the boats 
during the season ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you make any inquiries whatever of the boatmen with re- 
spect to the boat-fisheries 7—A. Well, I have talked the matter over; 
while in the harbor I have seen men whom I have asked if any of the 
boats were doing anything, or had done anything round the shore, and 
the like of that, you know. : 

Q. In which harbor did you do this?—A. Well, in Port Hood. 

Q. Whom did you ask ?—A. Now, you have got me. I don’t know: 
one boat-fisherthan from another. 

Q. How often did you so inquire in Port Hood, or anywhere else ?— 
A. Perhaps I might have inquired once or twice, or it might have been 
half a dozen times, I could not say which. 

Q. Did you inquire in Port Hood as to what the average catch of the 
boats was, or how they had done during the season ?—A. No; I never 
asked, save as to whether they had done anything along the shore. 

Q. During the season ?—A. No; but at that time—that day or that 
week. I would ask if they had been doing anything inshore. 

Q. That was after their fishing was over. You were not there till the 
fall?—A. Yes. : 

Q. Then I suppose you found out that their fishery was over for the 
season !—A. Do they not get mackerel on shore in the fall as well as in 
the summer ? 

Q. What did you find out from them ?—A. Well, the answer I got 
from them was that the boats were doing nothing. 
es They were not then fishing at all 7—A. Well, they were trying, it 

ems. 

Q. What is the fishing season for the boats ?—A. Well, I do not 
think that it belongs to me to answer that question. 

Q. How often did you find out that the boats were doing nothing, and 


daring what months !—A. Well, it was, say, in October that I made 
such inquiry. 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2427 


Q. Were you on your way home in October ?—A. No. 

Q. Had you then just come into the bay ?—A. I came in some time 
in September. 

Q. How long did you wait there?—A. We generally left the bay 
about the middle of October. We used to do so. 

Q. At what time in October did you make such inquiries ?—A. Per- 
haps the first or perhaps the last of September. 

Q. And you found out that the boats were doing nothing ?7—A. They 
said they were not. 

Q. Then you did not try there ?—A. No, not in there. 

Q. Was that the reason why you did not try in there?—A. Partly; 
that might have been partly the reason. 

Q. Did you ask what the boats had done, or usually did 1—A. No. 

Q. You then only made inquiry as to what the boat-fishers were doing 
that day or that week, as the case might be?—A. Yes. 

Q. How did you learn that the shore fisheries were useless and wortk- 
less ?—A. From what we could hear. 

Q. What did you hear?—A. What you are talking about don’t 
amount to anything as I can see. If we were in Port Hood Harbor and 
wanted to know whether there was any fishing round about there or 
not, we would see other skippers, &c., and find out in a very short time 
whether they had done anything off ’shore or on, and if there were no 
fish there we would go to what we considered the most likely place at 
which we could get them. 

Q. [understood you to say you did not make inquiries of any other 
vessels, and that to mind your own business was as much as you could 
do. Then you did inquire what other vessels had caught ?—A, Yes; 
naturally so. 

Q. And did you find out what they caught ?—-A. No; I do not think 
it. 

By Mr. Whiteway: 

Q. Are you part owner of the vessel of which you are now captain ?— 
A. No. 

Q. Were you part owner of the Knight Templar ?—A. No. 

Q. You fished on the Grand Banks from 1861 to 1866 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were a hand then ?—A,. Yes. 

Q. You have been on the Grand Banks during the last two years 7— 
A. Yes. 

Q. And this is the extent of your experience in that fishing ?—A. Yes. 

@. How many men are on board of your present vessel 2A. Four- 
teen, all told. 

Q. In the spring, when the vessel is fitted out, do each of these men 


_ get a supply of articles to leave with their families—an advance 7—A. 


I think so. I think that the firms stpply them with outfits. 

Q. The owners of the vessel supply them with a sufficiency for their 
families during their absence ?—A. I think so, but I am not sure about 
it. I know that as a general thing the families draw on the men. 

Q. During their absence, their wives or families get what they re- 
quire ?—A. Anything in reason, of course. I understand so. 

Q. Is the ordinary cash price or a large profit charged for these arti- 
cles ?—A. I have never been a member of such a firm; but I think they 
get enough oat of the business to run it of course—a fair profit. 

Q. The firms do not charge the ordinary cash price in this rela- 
tion?—A. Well, they ought not to; they are not going to get cash; 


I think they make enough to get a living out of the business. 


Q. You know that they do charge a long profit?—A. No; Ido not 


‘ 


2428 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


think that they do; but I think that they charge profit enough to make 
themselves whole, taking one year with another. : 

Q. Is their pércentage 30 or 40 per cent. above the cash price ?—A. 
It is 20 or 25 per cent., I think, over and above it. 

Q. Is not a greater price than the ordinary cash price charged for the 
articles required for the fitting out of a vessel ?—A. No, I do not think 
80. 

Q. Do you know whether this is so or not?—A. I have been part 
owner of 3 vessels, and for outfits from spring to the fall we expected to 
pay probably 15 per cent. over and above the cash price in consideration 
for the delay. 

Q. Then the supplier charges 15 per cent. over and above the cash 
price for articles supplied 7—A. Yes; something like that; he has got 
to have it for the use of his money ; such difference is 15 or 20 per cent., 
or somewhere along there ; [could not say exactly what it is. 

Q. What would it cost to pack and cure a barrel of mackerel for 
market 7—A. I am not prepared to answer that question. 

Q. Would $1 pay all such expenses ?—A. I think not; the barrel it- 
self is worth somewhere about a dollar; I think they charge $2 for 
packing a barrel of mackerel—for barrel and all. 

Q. That leaves a handsome profit to the packer; something like 50 or 
60 cents ?—A. Yes, about that. 

Q. What does it cost to cure a quintal of Bank codfish ?—A. I could 
not state such cost correctly; we bring our fish in cured in quintals, and 
weigh them from the hatch and sell them. 

Q. To the owners of the vessels ?—A. Sometimes, and sometimes to 
others. 

Q. But, as a general thing, the owner of the vessel takes the voyage 
as soon as the vessel arrives 7—A. Yes. 

Q. The fish is weighed out, and you are credited with a certain price 
for them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What does it cost to cure for market dried codfish ?—A. I think 
that at Beverly thy charge 25 cents a quintal for making the fish after 
it comes from the hatch. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Salt included ?—A. They do not use any salt there ; but in Glou- 
cester they do. 

By Mr. Whiteway: 

et Is there any other expense ?—A. Yes, if the fish are boxed up for 
market. 

Q. Is there not an arrangement made among the vessel-owners and 
suppliers for the Bank fishery as to the price which they will credit the 
fishermen for their fish ?—A. I think so. 

Q. So that immediately after a vessel comes in with a cargo the price 
to be credited is known from such previous arrangement among the 
merchants ’—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the difference between the prices allowed by the mer- 
chants and the market-price for dried codfish ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. Does not the owner of the vessel make a profit of something like 
$1 a quintal upon the fish when cured and ready for market ?—A. I 
think they calculate to make seventy-five cents or a dollar; but they 
do not always obtain it. 

Q. To what place did you go from Gloucester last year in the Knight 
Templar ’—A. To the Western Bank first. 

Q. Had you fresh bait?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2429 


Q. Did you take it from Gloucester ?—A. No. 

Q. Where did you get it?7—A. At Bliss Island, N. B. 

Q. Did you go into any Dominion or Newfoundland ports for bait 
last year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. Into Hermitage Bay, Newfoundland. 

Q. When were you there?—A. The first of May. 

- Q. Was that after you had used up the bait you had taken from Bliss 
Island ?—A. Yes; I took that bait to Western Bank, and afterwards 
went to Hermitage Bay and obtained herring. 

Q. And you then proceeded to the Grand Bank ?—A. Yes. 

@. Did you buy your bait there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you go at any other time last year to Newfoundland ports for 
bait?—A. Yes. 

Q. When ?—A. I was at St. John’s page the 1st of August, on my 
second trip. 

Q. You had been in the mean time to Glanccstas 7—A. We went to 
Gloucester on the 19th of June with our first trip. 

QQ. What did you take on your first voyage ?—A. 169,000 pounds. 

Q.. And you proceeded direct from Gloucester to St. John’s 7—A. We 
went to Canso; we could not get bait there, and then we went to St. 
Pierre Island. I bought salt bait there and went on the Bank with it, 
reaching the Bank on the 21st of July. 

Q. You afterward went for bait to the Newfoundland coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you leave the Bank to do so?—A. I was on the Bank 
10 days, leaving it about the 2d of August. I arrived in Newfoundland 
somewhere about the 3d or 4th of August. 

Q. Is your memory distinct regarding the days 7—A. Very nearly. 

Q. You got bait in St. John’s and then returned to the Bank 7?—A. 
No. I went in there to get ice and money. 

Q. Money—for what purpose ?—A. To buy bait and ice. 

Q. Did you require to get water there?—A. No. We might at one 
me got ice in St. John’s, and not bait, going to some other port for 
squi 

Q. Did you not then go to some other port for water and other arti- 
cles ?—A. When we used to goon long trips we took water enough 
for them, but now that we calculate to go in for fresh bait we do not 
take as much water with us, but fill up when we go in. 

Q. You say your port charges and all at St. John’s amounted to 
$400 ?—A. Yes, about that, for my last trip. : 

Q. Have you any account of it ?—A. Not here, but I could produce it. 

@. You -have given us items amounting to $29.84?—A. That is for 
port charges alone. I bought bait and ice besides. 
ag Were not several sums adyanced to the crew in St. John’s ?—A. 

0. 

Q. Do you never so advance money in port ?—A. Sometimes we let 
them have a little money. 

Q. Does not # great portion of this $400 consist of advances made 
to the crew ?—A. No; it consists of what was paid for port-charges, 
bait, and ice. Our other expenses are vot included in it. We do other 


trading around the coast. 


- Q. What other trading ?—A. Suppose we want to buy anything for 
the vessel, such as a barrel of flour, we do so; but such expenses are 


not included i in the $400. 


Q. What articles did you buy there on this occasion 7—A. I could 


_ not mention them all. I let the crew this year haye a little money, and 
I bought some things myself, clothing, &ce. 


2430 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Can you give us the particulars as to what you bought for the ves- 
sel !—A. I bought some rigging, some baskets for the handling of bait, 
and soon. I suppose you do not expect me to mention every article 
in detail. We never go in without spending some money. 

Q. What did you pay for bait on this occasion out of this $400 7—A. 
I could not tell you exactly, because we have to pay different prices for 
it. We may get bait for $12 at one time, and at another time it may 
cost us $100. ; 

Q. Have you ever paid $100 for bait on one trip?—A. I think I have 
for bait and ice, and I do not know but more. 

Q. What is the highest amount which you ever paid for bait alone on 
one trip 7—A. Sixty-eight dollars, I think, for squid. 

Q. And what is the lowest amount ?—A. Twelve dollars and fifty 
cents for caplin. 

Q. What do you pay for ice?—A. Different prices; they asked us 
$12 a ton this year. 

Q. How many tons of ice do you take on one trip ?—A. Six. 

Q. How much do you pay for ice on a trip?—A. Twelve dollars a ton, 
iv an ice country too. 

Q. When did you pay this?—A. This year, to a Dutchman there. I 
dou’t know his name. It was Vamburgh, or what’s his name, that keeps 
a confectionery shop ? 

Q. Lunburgh ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you mean to swear that you paid $12 a ton for ice?—A. Yes. 
: Q. How many tons did you get on this trip this year ?—A. Five tons, 

think. 

Q. Are you clear about this?—A. Yes; I took ice there last year. 

Q. That is for one baiting ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That makes $60 for ice, and, with $68 for bait, this makes $128; 
and adding to this sum $29.84, we have $157 for ice, bait, and port- 
charges. How is the difference between this amount and $400 made 
up !—A. We baited four times. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Does this $400 cover more than one trip ?—A. It covers the four 
baitings. This was for my last voyage. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. Between what dates did you bait?—A. Between the 1st of June 
and the last of August. 

Q. You went in four times to St. John’s?—A. No. 

Q. But in to the coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If you had not got that bait at Newfoundland, you must have ob- 
tained it somewhere ?—A. We might have taken salt bait. 

Q. It would have cost more than fresh bait, would it not ?—A. I could 
not say as to that. 

Q. What do you pay per barrel for salt bait ?—A. At Gloucester it 
costs, I guess, $4 a barrel. 

Q. And herrings in Newfoundland cost $1 a barrel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Would you require to buy ice, &c., in Gloucester?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you would have to go a considerably greater distance from 
ae Banks to Gloucester for these articles than to Newfoundland ?—A. 

es. 

Q. Then the cost of getting bait in Newfoundland is considerably less 
than it would be in Gloucester ?—A. I think not. 

Q. How is that!—A. If we are going to take bait from Gloucester, 
we would take probably 10 or 12 or 15 barrels, and the rest we would 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2431 


pick up on the Banks. If we were going to have salt bait, we would 
catch birds and porpoises, and get shack and mix it with them, and that 
would do us for the season. 

Q. Does your getting fresh bait prevent you getting shack on the 
Banks 7—A. Well, we consider fresh bait to be better than salt bait and 
shack. We have ice-houses and all that kind of thing, and we do not 
spend any time in looking after shack or in picking it up. 

Q. It must take you some time to get it on the Banks 7—A. Yes, of 
course; but when we have fresh bait we do not occupy any time in get- 
ting that at all. We do not then bother with it. 

@. What have you on your vessel in the harbor now?—A. About 


* 10,000 pounds of codfish, caught within a fortnight. 


Q. Where ?—A. Just east of what is called Green Island, near Port- 
land. 

Q. You have not been in Newfoundland for bait for this trip?—A. No. 

Q. Did you go there while on your former voyage this year ?—A. Yes ; 
four times. 

Q. How many times did you go to Newfoundland for bait last year ?— 
A. Three times. ; 

Q. What was the longest time between the time you left the Banks 
till you returned to them, that you have ever consumed in obtaining 
bait there ?—A. Nine days. 

Q. And five days is the shortest time you ever so occupied 7—A. Yes. 

Q: Have you ever observed the lantz on the Banks?—A. Yes. 

Q. During what months?—A. It is found there during all the months. 
I think it comes there in the last of June, and it is to be seen there in 
July and August—different schools are met with; the spring school is 
large and the Augusf school small. 

Q. Have you ever observed it there afterward?—A. I think it is there 
in September, and it is found there in October; I have seen them there 
in the last of the fall. 

Q. Are the caplin found there?—A. Yes, about the Virgin Rocks and 
the southern part of the Grand Banks; I have seen them there about 
the first of July and the last of June. 

- Q. Have you noticed how long they continue on the Banks ?—A. I 
think they stop there about a fortnight. 

Q. In what depth of water have you there seen /cagtin ?—A. In four 
or five fathoms. 

Q. Is that the deepest water in which you have seen them there ?—A. 
I have seen them in 40 fathoms; the codfish drive them right on to the 
surface of the water. 

Q. You have always fished with trawls?—A. I have also fished with 
hand-lines; I have fished with trawls during the last two years. We 
used hand-lines altogether on my first voyage. 

Q. Are you in the habit of taking up much seaweed on your trawls ?— 
A. No; Ido not know anything about that. 

Q. You have not seen this happen ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know as a matter of fact that seaweed 1s often brought up 
on the Banks?—A. I never knew of it. 

Q. Have you taken the trouble at any time to examine the stomachs 
of codfish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And have you found any small shell-fish in their stomachs 1—Yes, 
plenty of them. 

Q. Does that occur at all times during the fishing season ?—A, Yes, 


- more or less. 


Q. What is the food which you have principally found in their stom- 


2432 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


achs on the Banks?—A. Caplin and lantz, and what we call Bank 


_ clams and crabs. 


Q. Have you fished for cod on Western Banks, Grand Banks, and 
George’s Bank ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you observed any difference between the cod on these several 
Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Can you describe it?’—A. Yes. The Western Bank cod are not 
nearly so large as the Grand Bank cod; there is more of a black nape 
on the former than on the lattér, and the former are not so well fed, and 
they are very watery and slim. The Grand Bank cod are the largest 
fish, and they resemble each other more as to quality. They are large, 
white naped, and well fed—better fed than the Western Bank cod. The 
latter are small and black, and they are thinner than the others. 


By Mr. Foster: 
‘Q. What do you mean by black naped?—A. The nape is the belly 
part—it is a little thin skin over the belly of the fish. 
@. Your family does not have te get advances in your business ?—A. 
No, and I am not posted much in that line. 


No. 42. 
¢ FRIDAY, October 5, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


Rosert H. HULBERT, fisherman, of Gloucester, was called, on behalf 
of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 

Question. How old are you ?—Answer. Thirty-five. 

Q. Where were you born ?—A. In Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. 

Q. You have been a fisherman and captain of fishing and trading ves- 
sels for some years ?—A, Yes. 

Q. When did you first fish for mackerel in the Gulf of Saint Law- 
rence 7—A. In 1861, I think. 

Q. In what vessel were you then ?—A. The Roger Williams. 

Q. What was the name of her captain ?—A. Lane. : 

Q. How many fish did you take ?—A. Two hundred and sixty barrels, 
I believe, but 1 would not be certain. 

Q. Have you any means of refreshing your memory as to dates and 
catches ?—A,. No. 

Q. You are now pilot on the Speedwell ?’—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you catch your fish the first year you were in the gulf?— 
A. Principally at the Magdalen Islands. The last we caught were 
ree Fisherman’s Bank, between Cape George and Prince Edward 

sland. 

Q. Were any portion taken within 3 miles of the shore?—A. I could 
not say; but probably not more than one-eighth were so caaght, as [ 
have found this to be the ease on different trips made since. 

_Q. What were you doing from 1862 to 1865 ?—A. I was engaged in 
different kinds of fishing, but mostly in cod-fishing. I sometimes fished 
for mackerel on our own coast. 

Q. When did you make your second mackerel trip to the gulf?—A. I 
cannot be certain as to the year, because it was some time afterwards. 

Q. What was the name of your vessel ?—A. The Pocumtue, I think. 

Q. Who was her captain {—A. George H. Hurlbert, my brother. 

Q. You cannot fix that year accurately ?—A. No. : 

Q. What was your catch !—A. About 180 barrels. 


Sie pet aan 


AWARD OF. THE FISHERY COMMISSION. — 2433 


Q. Where were they taken ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands principally. 
Some were caught near Margaree Island, Cape Breton. 

Q. How many were caught there 7?—A. We only fished there one day, 
to the best of my recollection, and we got something in the neighbor- ~ 
hood of 30 or 35 barrels. 

Q. Were any taken that year by you within three miles of the 
shore ?—A. A certain number of vessels fish around Prince Edward 
Island and the coast of Cape Breton at different places. Some fish near 
the Port Hood Islands, on the west coast of Cape Breton. 

Q. But where were these 180 barrels taken ?—A. At the Magdalen 
Islands principally. We staid there as long as we could, with regard to 
the weather. We left them somewhere near the middle of October ; 
but I cannot remember the exact time. 

Q. Where did you then go ?—A. To Port Hood, for a harbor. 

Q. Were the mackerel you took near Margaree Island caught either 
within three miles of the island or the mainland ?—A. They were prob- 
ably taken within three miles of Margaree Island. 

Q. But not within three miles of the mainland ?—A. No. 

Q. Were they taken outside of that island?—A. Yes. ~ 

Q. When did you make your third trip to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?— . 
A. I cannot remember the year exactly ; but the next vessel in which I 
went there was the Aphrodite, Captain Calderwood. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take ?—A. Two hundred 
and seventy. 

Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Principally between North Cape, 
Prince Edward Island, and Miscou Island, up the west shore. 

Q. Was any portion’ of them taken within three miles of the shore ?— 
A. We did not fish much in any other part of the bay. There did not 
seem to be any fish at the Magdalen Islands that summer of any conse- 
quence. The fish were scarce there that year, and we took the most. 
part of our fish up in that part of the bay. We took none of any con- 
sequence anywhere else. 

Q. To what part of the bay do you particularly allude ?7—A. To that 
between North Cape and Point Miscou. 

Q. Were they taken within three miles of the shore ?—A. I should 
not say that they were. 

Q. Can you give any reason why they were not ?—A. It is because 
you cannot raise a body of mackerel in such shoal water as is generally 


_ found three miles from the shore on that part of the coast. 


Q. What is the shoalest water in which you usually raise a school of 
mackerel ?—A. We cannot raise a school, to make it profitable to lay to 
and heave over bait, in short of 20 or 25 fathoms of water. 

Q. Is the water as deep as that along the shore between North Cape 
and Point Miscou within three miles of the shore ?—A. I think not. 

Q. Have you fished along the north shore of Prince Edward Island ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. You were only in the gulf for mackerel during three years ?—A. 
No; I was there two years since that. 

Q. Did you fish along the bend of the island during the early years 
when you were in the bay ?—A. Yes; but very little; nothing of any 
consequence. 

Q. How near the shore do you anchor when seeking a lee off the bend 
of the island ?—A. From 2 to 24 miles of the shore. 

Q. And then when you weigh anchor and try to fish again, do you . 


begin to fish from the anchorage ground, or do yourun out farther 7—A. 


153 F 


2434 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


We then run off usually from 1 mile to 14 miles, and perhaps 24 miles 
before we try. 

(). What is the nearest point to the land at which you have known 
fishing to be done off Prince Edward Island ?—A. From 3 to 5 and 
probably from 5 to 15 miles off. 

Q. Why is it that a vessel, in order to fish advantageously, must raise 
a considerable school of mackerel ?—A. You have to have a considera- 
ble body of fish alongside to make it profitable to heave bait over; bait 
costs considerable. 

Q. How much bait would you throw over usually during a day’s fish- 
ing ?—A. From 2 to 24 barrels. 

Q. What does it cost per barrel ?—A. It varies in price at different 
ay al sometimes the price is as high as $5, and sometimes as low 
as $6. 

Q. Can you fish even at the distance from the land you have men- 
tioned off the north coast of Prince Edward Island and the bend of the 
island when the wind is on shore ?—A. No. 

Q. Why not ?—A. Because the water is shoal, and the sea raises 
there very quickly and becomes rough, and of course as the wind in- 
creases the sea will naturally -increase, and we have then to get out of 
there and go somewhere else. 

Q. Is it a safe place to be in ?—A. No, not when the wind is on shore. 

Q. Is there any particular point from which the wind there chiefly 
blows ?—A. Not that I know of; the wind varies there about the same 
as at apy other part of the coast. 

Q. How long does it ordinarily take to run the whole length of the 
island ?—A. 11 hours, with a good breeze. 

Q. Were you fishing up in these waters at any time when the cutters 
were here ?—A. Yes, one year. 

Q. That was the year you did not fix, and your third one, I suppose? 
—A, No, it was since then. 

Q. Do you remember either during your first or third year’s fishing 
here, going into Malpeque Habor and getting aground ?— A. Yes. 

Q. When was that ?—A. The year I wasin the Aphrodite. We went 
ashore going into Malpeque Harbor in the night. 

Q. How did it happen ?—A. The night was dark and stormy. 

Q. What did you get ashore on ?—A. On the bar while going in. 

Q. Have you been in any of the other harbors in the bend of the 
island 7—A. I was in Cascumpeque once. 

Q. Were you in any others ?—A. No; not on that side of the island. 

Q. Is it easy to enter either Cascumpeque or Malpeque Harbors with 
a light wind ?—A. No. 

Q. Can fishing-vessels depend on getting into them and out of the 
way from the storm ?—A. No. : 

Q. What, then, is the way of escape from a storm for fishing-vessels 
off the bend of the island ?—A. When yon see a storm commence, you 
must either go one way or the other to get out of the bend of the 
island—either around North Cape or down around East Point. The 
wind is generally so that you can fetch one way or the other. 

Q. How quickly does a high wind get up there ?—A. It varies con- 
siderably ; sometimes a squall rises, and it blows very heavily in a very 
short time—in a few minutes, in fact; and sometimes the wind rises 
gradually. 

Q. What do you say about the Magdalen Islands as a place for safe 
fishing ?—A. This is a very good place for fishing, because we can 
make a lee with any wind. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2435 


Q. For some years after your first three years you were not in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence 7—A. No. 

Q. When were you there again ?—A. In 1872. 

Q. In what vessel ?—A. The Hattie B. West; I was the skipper. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take ?—A. Three hundred 
and seven. 

Q. How long were you taking them?—A. We went into the bay 
some time between the 1st and the 10th of August, and we left it on 
the 25th of October. 

Q. Where were these fish taken ?—A. All at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. When did you leave the Magdalen Islands?—A. About the 20th 
or the 21st of October. 

Q. Where did you then go?—A. To Georgetown, Prince Edward 
Island. 

Q. For what ?—A. We started to go to Port Hood, but when we got 
across to East Point, Prince Edward Island, the wind came from the 
southward with such force that we could not fetch Port Hood, and as 
the wind blew fresh, we went into Georgetown and there made prepara- 
tions to go home. 

Q. Did you afterward go to Port Hood ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you fish that year anywhere save at the Magdalen Islands ?— 
A. We tried one day from East Point up the island probably twelve 
wiles on the north side, with some fifty sail of vesseis. 

Q. How far out were you ?—A. We tried all the way probably three 
to twelve miles off shore. 

Q. With what success ?—A. We could not find sila none of 
us got anything. 

Q. This was in 1872?—A. Yes. 

Q. What were you doing in 1873 ?—A. I was then again in the bay. 

Q. In what vessel ?—A. The Joe Hooker. 

Q. Were you skipper ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you go into the bay ?—A. Somewhere about the 10th 
of July; but I would not be certain. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take that season 7—A. 
We sent home by a freighter from Canso, 210} barrels; we then re- 
turned, and got back the day before the storm of 1873. 

Q. Did you send your fish home in a sailing-vessel or in a steamer ?— 
A. We shipped them in a sailing-vessel. 

Q. What did it cost to send them home?—A. Seventy-five cents a 


* barrel. 


Q. From what port did you send them ?7—A. Port Hawkesbury. 
Q. When ?—A. The gale took place on the 13th, I think, and—but I 


~ ean hardly remember the date, though I have it all down in some of my 


books, which I haven’t with me; it was somewhere about the Ist of 
August. , 

Q. What did you do after that?—A. We took 270 barrels. 

Q. Where did you catch your two fares of mackerel in 1873 ?7—A. We 
caught our first trip on Bank Bradley and at the Magdalen Islands 
in the summer; and we took our second trip principally at the Magdalen 
Islands ; we got some few at Prince Edward Island. 

Q. How many did you take at Prince Edward Island ?—A. Probably 
one-eighth of the last fare, but no more. 

Q. Hownear the shore was that portion taken ?—A, They were caught, 
I should say, from 5 to 15 miles off the land. 

Q. Were you in Port Mulgrave that season ?7—A. No. 


/ 


2436 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Your whole catch that year, in your two trips, was 4804 barrels, 
which went home to Gloucester ?—A. Yes. 7 

Q. Have you the means of telling how much you made that year your- 
self or how your vessel did?—A. I could not give the exact stock, but 
it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000. 

Q. What was the quality of the mackerel ?—A. They were ones and 
twos. 

Q. With what firm did yon fit out ?—A. Shute & Merchant, of Glou- 
cester, who owned the vessel. 

Q. And they packed out the mackerel ?—A. Yes. : 

Q. What have you been doing since ?—A. Principally seining around 
on the coast of the United States. 

Q. What did you do in 1874, seining ?—A. I did not go out until June, 
and I believe we landed 800 barrels. 

Q. How many trips did you make ?—A. Four, after the Ist of June. 

Q. What were you doing in 1875?—A. Seining, after the 1st of June. 

Q. Did you go cod-fishing in the spring ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where 7—A. To Sable Island Bank. 

Q. How early did you begin your seining for mackerel ?—A. By the 
1st of June. 

Q. And you took 500 barrels?—A. Yes. 

Q. In 1876, where were you 7—A. In the same business as in 1875; I 
was cod-fishing in the spring. 

Q. When did you begin seining 7—A. About the same time, the 1st of 
June. 

Q. How did you succeed last year ?—A. We did very well. 

Q. How many barrels did you get?—A. I was in two different ves- 
sels; and last spring 1 did not go cod-fishing at all. 

Q. What did you do in your vessel?—A. We went south for mackerel 
in her. We went away down the coast seining. 

@. How many barrels did you take on the first trip?—A. We carried 
100 barrels into New York fresh and we carried home 270 barrels. 

Q. You got 370 barrels ?7—A. Yes; 100 we sold in New York and 270 
we packed. 

8 How long were you making that trip?—A. About 6 weeks, I 
think. 

- What did you do afterwards ?—A. I went seining in another ves- 
sel. : 

Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. About 500, I think—during 
the best of the season. 

Q. How many then did you get on the whole ?—A. About 870 barrels 
during the whole summer. 

Q. What were you doing last spring ?—A. I did not do anything until 
I went seining. : 

Q. How many mackerel did you take this spring ?—A. I cannot tell 
exactly, because we sold the most of them fresh in New York ; we iced 
them and carried them in fresh. 

Q. You did not sell them by the barrel ?—A. No. 

By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Where did you go fishing ?—A. To the southward of New York. 
By Mr. Foster: 


Q. How many barrels did you pack besides the fresh ones ?—A. After 
we were done with the fresh ones we brought in 330 barrels salted. 


Phe was the vessel’s stock ?—A. She stocked on the first trip 
v,ll2, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2437 


Q. How long did it take you to do that?—A. About 7 weeks, or prob- 
ably rather 8 weeks. 

Q. Whereabouts were these fish taken?—A. All the way from 20 
miles north of Hatteras to as far north as Nantucket. . 

Q. Where did you go on your next trip this season?—A. Down on 
the coast of Maine; we were a short time gone; we could not find any 
fish, and so we came home again. 

Q. What did you do?—A. I believe we stocked about $500 on the 
second trip. 

Q. Did you make a third trip this year?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where?—A. At Block Island. 

Q. What was your luck there?—A. It was very good, considering. 

Q. How many barrels did you take?7—A. 130. 

Q. What did they sell for ?—A. $22.50 and $23.50 a barrel. We sold 
them at Gloucester ; they were Block Island mackerel. 

Q. What was your stock?—A. I could not tell exactly, but we shared 
$79 each, and there were 14 men. 

Q. What was the total amount all your trips this summer stocked, 
seined on the United States coast ?—A. I heard it talked of at the time, 
and I think that it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $8,000. 

Q. That was the result of the stocking out?—A. Yes; that was the 
total stock. 

Q. When did you cease fishing this summer?—A. About the 1st of 
August. , 

Q. And soon afterwards you came up in the Speedwell as pilot ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. You have been several times in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and you 
have fished over our own coast from Hatteras up, and I should like to 
ask you a few questions respecting the food of the mackerel—where do 
you find it?—A. We find it usually from 20 to 50 miles off the land, 
during the early part of the season; generally we do not then find any 
food at the surface of the water; so their food at this time consists of 
shrimps and sand fleas, which we find inside of the fish. 

Q. What do you find later?—A. We then find what we call red seed 
—Il do not know its proper name, but it is something that looks round 
and red—with shrimps and little small fish of different kinds. 

Q. How far out at sea have you found this food, this red stuff?—A. I 


. have seen it, I may safely say, 40 miles southeast of George’s. 


Q. In what quantities ?—A. I could not exactly say, because when 
we are out that way of course, if we see any fish, we have not much 
time to look after anything else. 

Q. Have you found it in abundance or in small quantities? A. Some 
years it is very abundant, and more years when the mackerel ao not 
play out that way, there probably won’t be so much of it. 

Q. Where and when do the mackerel first appear on the United 
States coast in spring ?—A. We first find them somewhere abreast of 


_ Hatteras or a little to the northward of it—20 miles north of Hatteras. 


Q. At what date?—A. From the 20th to the 25th of April. 
- Q. When are they at Cape Delaware ?—A. That depends upon the 
weather ; if you have northerly and easterly winds they won’t come up 
very fast; they will then come very slowly along the coast, but if you 


have moderate southerly and westerly winds they will. naturally work 


along a little faster than if it was a cold and backward spring. They 


_ vary considerably in the time of their appearance. 


Q. Give us the average approximate dates when they make their ap- 


pearance off Cape Delaware.—A. It is something like fifteen days per- 


Res 
= 


2438 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


haps at the average, but if it is not a moderate season it would probably 
be from fifteen to eighteen days. 

Q. I want to learn the average date of their appearance off Cape 
Delaware; whichis the earliest and which the latest date?—A. It would 
be somewhere about the 10th of May, and perhaps sometimes a little 
earlier than that. 

Q. At what date do they reach Sandy Hook ?—A. Probably about 
the 15th of May they arrive there, and afterward they reach Montak 
Point, at the east end of Long Island. They stop longer off New York 
than off any other part of the coast. We cannot tell exactly when they 
come to Montak, because after they leave the grounds off New York we 
think they go to the bottom and spawn; the schools are then broken upa 
great deal at certain points; after they goalong the coast of Long Island, 
or get down that way, they do not appear to be in as great a body as 
they are off New York; they do not school so often in these quarters. 

Q. And you think that the schools begin to break up at that point 7— 
A. Yes; as a general thing. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Is that at Sandy Hook ?—A. It occurs east of it on the coast of 
Long Isiand. ' : 


By Mr. Foster: 

Q. When do the mackerel reach the vicinity of Cape Cod and Nan- 
tucket ?—A. The schools vary considerably in this respect. The fish 
that pass through by the Vineyard get through early, but the fish that 
go outside do not get along quite so early. Sometimes part of them 
will get down through by the Vineyard by the 1st of June, or perhaps 
the 10th of June; but the fish that go outside will be a little later. 

Q. Where are the spawning places for mackerel off the United States 
coast —A. We think that a great quantity of them spawn on the south- 
west part of George’s Bank and about Nantucket Shoals, off Sankaty 
Head, and on the fishing-ground off there; a large fishing-ground is 
situated southeast or east of Nantucket. 

Q. Coming north of Nantucket Shoals, where are the spawning 
grounds found ?—A. Sankaty Head is where there is a light-house on 
the eastern part of Nantucket Island, I believe. 

Q. Southwest from George’s Bank ?—A. Yes. 

(. Where do you find their spawning grounds, to the northward of 
this?—A. On the different Banks around Massachusetts Bay, I sap- 
pose, though I never caught any spawning there, but I have caught 
mackerel there at different times out of which spawn would run. 

By Sir Alexander Galt : 

Q. At what date was this the case?—A. Probably from the 1st to 
the 15th of June; those fish do not all spawn at the same time. This 
depends on the time when they arrive on the coast. Those that pass 
through the Vineyard do not geuerally spawn until after they get 
through. 

By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Give the earliest and the latest dates for the spawning season at 
the different points on our coast ?—A. This would extend probably from 
the 15th of Jane to the 1st of July. 

Q. Then you think that their spawning is concluded on our coast by 
the Ist of July —A. Yes. 


Q. How long do the different spawning times for the schools of mack- 


2 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2439 


erel last ?—A. Probably not more than 10 days, and perhaps not so long. 
When the mackerel are spawning, in our opinion, there is generally a 
dull spell, during which they do not school or go into deep water, as 
they have gone down, we think, to spawn. We donot then catch many , 
of them, and before this dull spell commences, the spawn is running out 


. of a great many of them quite freely. When we find that they have 


come up again in bodies—which is probably ten days or a fortnight 
after the opening of the dull spell—we find that the spawn is out of 
them. 

Q. How soon do they begin to be in good condition after their spawn- 
ing is over?—A. You can perceive that they have increased some in 
flesh in a fortnight’s time afterwards. 

@. Name the points on the American coast at which the mackerel are 
taken in large quantities, beginning to the southward, and running 
northward, and the particular seasons when these fish are abundant at 
these points?—A. We find quite a body of fish after their spawning is 
through, out near the south shoal lightship at Nantucket, and off to the 
eastward of Nantucket Island; southeast of that we find quite a body 
of mackerel after their spawning is done, some years; and some years 
there will not be so many there; but generally a number of fish are 
taken there. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: _ 
Q. When does this take place?—A. From the 25th of June to the 
10th of July, sometimes; the dates vary some. 
By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Mention the most southerly point where the mackerel are-found 
in abundance ?—A. We never find any extra fishing until we get some- 
where near half-way between Cape Cod and Sandy Hook; along the 
coast there we find the fish considerably plentiful. We find them there 


north of the light-ship—say 20 miles north of it, off Delaware. 


Q. How many mackerel did you ever know to be taken in one day 
there, by one vessel?—A. I have known 100 barrels to be taken there 
by vessels in one day. 

Q. When you were with them ?—A. Yes; I saw them at the time. 

Q. When was this?—A. Somewhere along about the 1st of May. 

Q. That was before they had spawned ?—A. Yes; the date when they 
are so caught there varies sometimes; it is sometimes later and some- 
times earlier. We sometimes take large quantities off Barnegat, froin 
15 to 45 miles off the land. 

Q. Where is Barnegat ?—A. It is situated probably five-eighths of the 
way from Cape Cod to Sandy Hook. 

Q. How large a quantity have you known to be taken off Barnegat 
by the vessel ?—A. Sometimes we get in one haul there 150 barrels and 
perhaps more. I have been there when 140 barrels were taken in a day 
at one haul of the seine. 

Q. When was that?—A. Probably from the Ist to the 5th of May. 

Q. What is the next point farther north?—A. Off New ‘York, and 

Sandy Hook. 
- Q. When are they caught there?—A. Perhaps from the 5th to the 
10th of. May, and may be a little later. The fish remain some time off 
New York; their stay depends on the weather. 

Q. How large a catch have you known to be taken in one day there?— 


_ A. This last spring we took as high as 180 barrels at one haul there. 


Q. Which is the next point A. After the mackerel get by there, 


we do not find anything that is extra good fishing until we get down 


2440 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


towards the South Shoal light-ship, near Nantucket; perhaps there 
may be some at Montauk, but there are not so many there as down 
about the light-ship. There is no extra good fishing near Montauk dur- 
ing the first part of the season. 

Q. How large a catch have you known to be made there 7—A. The 
schools at this point are generally broken up a great deal. 

Q. You think that the schools break up ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many barrels have you ever known to be taken there in one 
day ?—A. Perhaps from 20 to 40 barrels. 

Q. What is the next place?—A. The next place, where we find large 
schools, is down about the South Shoal light-ship. 

Q. You have omitted to mention Block Island?—A. Well, we do not 
find mackerel there to any amount early in the summer. 

Q. How early do you find them there?—A. We find them there in 
small schools about the same time as off Montauk. 

@. What is the season for fishing at Block Island?—A. Along in 
midsummer. 

Q. After they have spawned ?—A. Yes; fish have been caught this 
summer near Montauk Point. Those are fish that do not come north 
any farther, but stay at Block Island all summer. . 

q. Give an account of Block Island mackerel-fishing, and state the 
quality caught, the times when taken, and the quantities of the catches 
made there.—A. They have been taken this year there in very small 
schools, and as low as 5 barrels in a school, though there have been as 
high as 200 barrels taken in a school this summer after the 1st of July; 
there was nothing done before that there of any account. 

Q. How was the fishing last year at Block Island?—A. We did not 
have any vessels there last summer. One or two vessels went there 
and staid a short time, and two out of that number got trips. 

Q. What is the quality of Block Island mackerel?—A. These fish are 
commonly large enough and long enough for extra ones. 

Q. By that you mean mess mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What are they sold for?—A. I do not know what price they have 
brought this summer. We did not mess our mackerel; but probably 
they will bring from $26 to $27 a barrel. 

Q. Is their price a good deal higher than that of any other mackerel 
which comes to the market ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where is the next place at which the mackerel are found in abun- 
dance ?—A. East of Block Island. | 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. When are the fine mackerel which you have just mentioned taken? 
—A. From the last of Jaly and all through August. 
By Mf. Foster: 
Ng da say that this school of mackerel does not go farther north ?— 
A. es, 

Q. Explain why you think so.—A. I say so because we do not catch 
any schools of that sized mackerel any distance to the nor’ard of this 
point, or more than 20 miles to the north of Block Island. We get an 
odd mackerel, overgrown, in a school, once in a while, but we do not 
meet with schools ot such mackerel any distance north of Block Island. 

Q. You are satisfied that this school goes no father north?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that the commonly received opinion ?—A. We have never taken 
notice of this fact until of late years, although those fish were there pre- 
viously. Those who have fished there during different seasons tell me 
that these fish have been there every season for a number of years. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2441 


Q. Where is the next place at which mackerel are takén?—A. We do 
not take many after we leave this point until we reach Nantucket. 

Q. When are they found there?—A. After they have spawned. 

Q. Give the dates as near as you can in this regard.—A. They are 
found here from the 20th or the 25th of June until the 10th of July per? 
haps; this would be about the period during which the largest body of 
fish is met with at this point. 

Q. Is there a school which stays about Nantucket all summer ?—A. 
No. 

Q. Why do they go there ?—A. I do not know. I suppose that part 
of them go there to spawn. This is where we miss them after they first 
come there; we lose the fish that first come on the coast there for a 
short time. 

Q. What is the greatest catch which you have known to be made in 
a day by one vessel off Nantucket ?—A. I have known vessels take a 
school, which they could not handle, there in a day; they would have 
to let a large quantity of the fish go out before they could handle the 
seine. 

Q. What is the largest number of barrels which you have known to 
be brought on deck ?—A. We took 200 barrels there this summer, and, 
after taking this quantity out, we gave the seine over to another vessel 
which took out an additional 150 barrels, and then a shark went through 
the seine, tearing it to pieces, so they lost the rest, and consequently 
we do not know how many barrels were in the seine. 

Q. Why did you give away 150 barrels ?—A. Because we could not 
dress any more than we had taken out. We had all we could take care 
of in good weather. 

Q. And you know that 350 barrels were taken out of the seine before 
the shark destroyed it?—A. Yes. 

Q. When was this ?—A. I cannot give the exact date, but it happened 
some time between the 5th of June and the 10th of July. 

Q. Had the fish then spawned ?—A. Yes. 

Q. It was after the mackerel were in good condition ?—A. We got a 
very small quantity of twos out of this catch, and twos were the best 
we could get out of them at that time of the year. 

Q. What is the case north of Nantucket Shoals ?—A. We will find 
that same body of fish after they leave taat place on George’s Bank. 

Q. Have you seined there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the largest quantity which you have known one vessel to 
seine there in one day ?—A. I can only speak in this relation concern- 
ing vessels in which I have myself been. We have taken 100 and 110 
barrels at a haul there. 

by ut what time during the sammer?—A. Probably about the 20th 
of July: 

Q. Were those mackerel in good condition ?—A. There were some 
ones among them then. 

Q. They had fattened up some?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where is the next point at which mackerel are found?—A. The 
next point of any consequence is situated on the coast of Maine, near 
Monhegan and Mount Desert Islands. Monhegan Island lies off the 


_ mouth of the Penobscot. 


Q. How far is this from Mount Desert ?—A. I do hot know exactly, 
but it is somewhere about 40 miles from it. 

Q. Is that in the Bay of Penobscot ?—A. This island lies off shore— 
off the western part of Penobscot Bay, outside. 

Q. How large an island is it?—A. I cannot tell exactly. 


2442 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Has it any inhabitants?—A. Yes; quite a number of fishermen 
live on it. I suppose it has 100 inhabitants, and perhaps more. It 
belongs to the State of Maine. 

Q. How large a catch have you known to be made there in a day by 
one vessel ?—A. We do not generally catch there more than from 100 to 
125 barrels ina haul. Sometimes, however, vessels get more there; but 
I have known that to be done in a day. 

Q. When '—A. From the last of July along through August. 

@. What is the quality of the fish caught in this locality ?—A. All 
that are large and long enough are fit for number ones. 

Q. What does this indicate with respect to fatness ?—A. There are 
no particularly long ones; but at that time of the year, they are fat 
enough for ones, if they are long enough. 

Q. What is the next place?—A. Well, we remain there the bigger 
part of the season until the mackerel begin to move westward again. 

Q. Do you not go nearer to Mount Desert than that?—A. We find 
the best fishing between Monhegan Island and Mount Desert; this is 
the ground we fish on from the last of July all through August. 

Q. Over how large a space ?—A. Along a coast of 40 miles perhaps, 
and perhaps a little more; we fish all the way from 10 to 50 miles off the 
shore there out to Jeffrey’s Bank, and even farther than that. 

At this point the examination of this witness was interrupted by con- 
sent of the Commission, to allow of the hearing of other testimony. 


No. 43. 


CASTANUS M. SMALLEY, fisherman, of Belfast, Me., was called on be- 
half of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. Did you sail out of Rockland or Belfast ?—Answer. My 
vessel sails from Rockland. 

Q. When did you begin to go fishing ?—A. In 1858. 

Q. Did you fish during 1858, 1859, and 1860 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In the bay 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many trips did you make in 1858 ?—A. One. 

@. How many fish did you then catch ?—A. 200 barrels. 

Q. Did you catch any of these within three miles of the shore ?—A. 
No; they were all taken on Banks Orphan and Bradley. 

Q. How many barrels did you catch in 1859 ?—A. About 175. 

@. And in 1860?—A. About 200 barrels. 


: Q. ths you pack out that number ?—A. These were what we call sea- 
arrels. 

Q. Did you try to fish inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In what way !—A, With hooks and lines and bait. 

Q. Did you go in and drift out?—A. Yes; we hardly ever anchor 
when we are fishing for mackerel. 
_ Q. What portion of your fish, at the outside, do you think you caught 
inshore within three miles of the coast in 1860 7—A. Possibly one-third. 

Q. That is the outside figure ?—A. Yes. 

(. Where did you find the most and the best mackerel during these 
three years—inshore or off shore ?—A. Off shore. 

Q. There is no question about that ?—A. No. 

(2. After 1860 you were not fishing for some years?—A. Yes. 


Q. How many ?—A. I think that I started fishing again in 1866, th 
year after the war. g again in , the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2443 


Q. In what vessel were you in 1858?—A. The Georgiana, of Cohasset. 
Q. And in 1859?—A. I was then in the same vessel. 

Q. And in 1860?—A. I was then in the Star of Hope, of Cohasset. 

Q. Were you in the service of the United States in the Army ?—A.., 


Q. When did you join the Army ?—A. In July, 1862. 

Q. And until when did you stay in it?—A. Until the 7th of June, 
1865. 

Q. When did you next go fishing?—A. I next went to the bay, I 
think, in 1867. 

Q. Did you fish in 18667—A. Yes. 

Q. Where ?—A. Partly on our shore. 

Q. In a fishing-vessel?—A. Yes. 

Q. For what ?—A. Mackerel. 

Q. At what part of the American shore did you fish 7—A. We fished 
all the way from Mount Desert Rock to Cashes Ledge and Cape Cod. 

Q. In 1867 you came to the bay 7—A. Yes. 

(. How many barrels of mackerel did you then catch ?—A. About 
200. 

Q. What was the name of your vessel that year?—A. The Florence 
Reed. 

Q. Where did you fish ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Did you catch all your fish there?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you have a license in 1867?—A. Yes. 

a And still you caught all your fish off the Magdalen Islands ?—A. 
es. 

. And made no use of your license ?—A. No. 

. Where did you fish in 1868?—A. On our shore. 

. For mackerel ?—A. For codfish and mackerel. 

. Between Mount Desert and Cape Cod ?—A. For mackerel; yes. 

. Where did you fish for cod ?—A. On the Western Bank for the 
spring trip. 

Q. Were you in the bay in 1869 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And also in 1870?—A. Yes. 

Q. What did you catch in 1870?—A. We carried out of the bay that 
year 200 barrels. 

Q. That was the last time that you were then in the bay ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What did you fit for?—A. That was all the vessel would carry ; 
we were full. JI am in the same’vessel now. 

Q. What is her name ?—A. The Esperanza. 

@. What portion of your fish was caught broad off shore and more 
than three miles from the coast?—A. From one-third to one-half were 
taken off shore and the rest, eel-grass mackerel, were caught inshore. 

Q. Where ?—A. Principally around Prince Edward Island. 

Q. Of what quality were these mackerel ?—A. They were poor. 

Q. How came you to fish there for poor mackerel; were there none 
to be caught outside ?—A. I presume that some were to be caught out- 
side at the time, but if a man gets a catch of fish inshore, he is liable to 
stop there and see if he can get another one. 

Q. Where were you fishing in 1871 and 1872?—A. On the American 
coast. 

Q. Were you fishing for cod and mackerel ?—A. We were cod- fishing 
on the spring trips, and we fished for mackerel during the rest of the 
season. In the spring we were on the Western Bank and not on the 
Grand Bank. 

Q. How did you do?—A. Very well, indeed. 


OOODOO 


= 


2444 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Were you in 1873 in the bay again?—A. Yes. 

In what vessel were you in 1868 ?—A. The Esperanza. 
Were you in the same vessel in 1869 ?—A. Yes. 

. Have you been in her ever since ?—A. No. 

In 1869 you were in her?—A. Yes. 

In 1870?—A. Yes. 

. In 1871 ?7—A. Yes. 

In 1872 1—A. I was in her. 

. In 1873 you were in the bay again ?—A. Yes. 

. How many trips?—A. I made one in the vessel myself and came 
down, and the second trip I stopped ashore. 

Q. Was that the Esperanza?—A. No, it was the Ernest F. Norwood. 

Q. How many did you catch ?—A, 230. Iam pretty positive it was 
that. : 

Q. Did you hear anything about the second trip ?—A. I heard it was 
260. 

Q. You learned that from whom?—A. From the master, Captain 
Adams. 

Q. Is it true that the vessel got 400 barrels the second trip?—A. No, 
I do not think it is. 

Q. Why not ?—A. In the first place, I do not think the master would 
lie about it, and in the second place the vessel could not carry them. 

Q. That was in 1873, you are sure?—A. Yes. 

Q. Those 230 caught when you were on board her, where were they 
taken ?—A. They were principally taken from Bank Orphan to East 
Port. 

Q. Offshore ?—A. Well, I should say so. I mean the principal part 
of them was taken off shore. 

Q. How many of the 230 do you think were taken near inshore ?—A. 
Well, it is a pretty hard matter for a man to stand on deck and tell 
whether it is within three or six miles, but a man’s judgment would Jead 
him. I should say that perhaps one-third of the whole trip was taken 
within between three and five miles. 

Q. Do you think you took any within less?—A. Yes, there might be 
some. 

Q. What proportion of the whole was taken within less than three 
miles?—A. There might be 30 or 40. 

Q. You tried inside and outside ?—A. Yes, we always did that. 


LELLELLLLO 


Q. And you found a small catch inside, while they were largest and ~ 


most numerous outside ?—A. Yes. 
Q. In 1874, you were ashore?—A. Yes. 
sae In 1875, you were at home. In 1876 where were you?—A. I was 
ing. 
Q. Where ?—A. In the bay. ; 
Q. Were you cod-fishing early in the spring ?—A. Yes. 
Q. How many months did you fish for cod ?—A. We generally caleu- 


roan to get ready about the 20th of March and return somewhere about 
une, 


Q. Then you would go off in July to the bay for mackerel ?—A. Yes: ~ 


I believe I went through Canseau last year, the 26th day of July. Iam 
pretty positive it was the 26th. 

Q. When did you return?—A. I came out of the bay somewhere be- 
tween the 2d and Sth of September; at any rate, I was home the day 
of our State election. 


Q. What day is the State election?—A. It is, I think, the second Mon: 
day in September. 


3 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2445 


Q. You made two trips when in the bay. How was it that year ?— 
A. Very dull. 

Q. Did you try inshore and outshore both 7—A,. Yes. 

Q. Now in 1877, this year, when did you go into the bay ?7—A. I went .* 
to the bay in August. I went through Canseau. 

Q. Are you in here for harbor 7—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you come in?—A. Day before yesterday. 

Q. Are you homeward bound ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you leave the fishing-grounds, or come through the 
Gut ?—A. We came through Canseau a week ago; we came last Satur- 
day. 

_ Q. How much did you get all this time?—A. 110 barrels. 

@. And you tried inshore and outshore both ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. What parts of the bay have you been ?—A. We have been from 
what we call the West Shore to Port Hood. 

Q. You fished all around ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And that is the best you could do?—A. Yes. 

Q. How much can your vessel carry ?—A. I fitted for 200. We had 
a@ small vessel. 

Q. This won’t pay?—A. No, I don’t think it will. 

Q. Did you heave to in the Bend ?7—A. Yes, I tried coming down. 
We hove to two or three times. 

Q. Did you find anything ?—A. Perhaps we might catch half a dozen 
mackerel. 

Q. Not half a dozen barrels ?—A. No. 

Q. Those were not very large were they 7—A. Well, they were what 
we term No. 2, small fry. 

Q. You have been codfishing how many seasons, do you think, in 
all?—A. I have been codfishing five seasons in the same vessel. That 
is what we term spring fishing, not the season right through. 

Q. Have you used salt bait or fresh ?—A. Salt bait always, with the 
exception of one trip that we caught mackerel and had them spoil on 
our hands. 

Q. Did you find the salt bait successful 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Haud-lining?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you a trawl also ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You haven’t found it necessary to go in for fresh bait 7—A. No, sir. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. I don’t know whether you mentioned the number of barrels you 
caught in 1876 ?—A. I don’t think I was asked it. 

Q. About how many ?—A. 120 barrels. 

Q. What vessel had you in 1876 ?—A. The Esperanza, 

Q. The same as now ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is her tonnage 7—A. 43 tons, American tonnage. 

Q. She got pretty well for that tonnage 7—A. Well, we didn’t call it 
so, with 12 men. 

Q. Are 12 men a fair average number in a vessel that size?—A. Yes, 


°; sir. 


Q. You caught one-third inshore? Is that the average ?—A. Yes, sir, 
generally. 

Q. It is, in your best judgment?—A. In my best judgment we gen- 
erally caught one-third or somewhere about that. 

Q. That would be a fair average, I suppose?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Sometimes more and sometimes less, but from one-third toone-half? 

Mr. DANA. He didn’t say that. 


2446 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Mr. Davies. He said from one-third to one-half were taken inshore, 

Q. You said you took two-thirds or one-half offshore ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you think that would be an average, one-third inshore; that 
would be a fair average of the fishing of the mackerel-vessels inshore 
generally ?—A. Generally speaking, of some vessels. There are some 
vessels that hang around inshore that are not fit to go out. 

Q. They would catch more inshore ?—A. Yes, and poorer fish. 

Q. One third, you think, would bea fair average for large vessels 7— 
A. Iam not going to speak of others besides my own. 

Q. One-third would be a fair average ?—A. What I took out of the 

bay, one-third was caught by the three-mile limit; but we might have 
been a little further off or a little nearerin. It is a hard matter to 
judge. 
Y @. Do you think there is any considerable number of those poorer 
vessels that can’t fish further out but hang inshore ?—A. There is quite 
a number of them that never come by East Point. They daren’t go up 
in the bend. 

Q. They are American vessels ?—A. Some are, and some are not. 

Q. About what proportion would you consider to be a fair propor- 
tion of American vessels that hug the shore that way 7—A. I shonld say 
there was four-fifths of them American vessels, because there is not a 
great many English vessels that fish. 

Q. What proportion of the fleet, I mean, that come into the gulf, hug 
the shore that way and catch fish more inshore?—A. There might be 
one in twenty-five sail. 

Q. Do you think there would be that many 7—A. Yes; there might 
be one in twenty-five. ; 

Q. You have seen them, I suppose, in the different years you have 
been in the guif?—A. Yes; there are always two or three hanging 
round in harbors that dare not try it outside. There are plenty of those 
poor vessels. 

Q. You used a term, eel-grass mackerel 7?—A. Yes. : 

Q. Well, is that a term that is used on your shores at all ?—A. That 
is a term that all those fishermen use when they catch mackerel inshore. 
They are an inferior quality, with black bellies. I have some of them 
on board now. 

Q. Is it a term in use on your own shores ?—/A. Yes. 

Q. Then you consider that your mackerel caught inshore are inferior 
to those caught outside ?—A. Yes; we think that is so anywhere. 

Q. Couldn’t you catch the best mackerel on your shore in close?—A. 
Nebo there are times when the mackerel will run in there to chase the 

ait in. 

Q. Is it not the fact that the best mackerel are caught inside at Block 
Island ?—A. [never fished there. I don’t think they catch any in Block 
Island, within five or six miles of it. 
ae Are you acquainted with Rastico ?—A. I have been up and down 

ere, 

Q. Are not they the very best quality of mackerel caught?—A. I 
would not call them so. 

Q. That would be a matter of opinion?—A. Well, I could not call 
them so. I prefer fishing in a little deeper water. To make good, nice, 
white fish I prefer them caught in deeper water. 

: Q. What depth would you say ?—A. I want them over eight fathoms. 
You can’t get a very big depth in the Bay of St. Lawrence anywhere 
until you sail to the northward. 

Q. Now, don’t you think the same fish go out and in. Is it your 
idea that certain schools keep in one place and certain schools in 


Se ee 


‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION; 2447 


another? Is it not your idea that the same mackerel go out and in ?— 
A. Yes, it is my opinion that the mackerel go out and in, and we know 
they do. But itis my positive idea that the best fish that go into the 

Bay Chaleurs go through the strait and by Sydney. -* 

Q. Do you mean the Strait of Canso?—A. No, the Strait of Belleisle 
and come down to Sydney. 

Q. What time?—A. Well, they are passing up and down there after 
the month of August until they all go out. 

Q. You think these are not the same as you catch off the north of the 
island ?—A. No, I don’t. 

Q. Do you think your opinion is general?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That they are a different class of fish altogether?—A. Yes. 

Q. Might it not be just that you catch them later in the year when 
they are fatter?—A. Well, after September comes in they don’t fat up 
much. 

Q. Don’t you think it is because you get later and fatter mackerel ?— 
A. No, I don’t think that is the reason. I don’t think fish fatten aify 
after the middle of September. 

Q. At any rate take the coast of the island itself. If you fish out in 
deep water you think you catch better fish 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you must be under the impression that they divide and the 
best remain outside while the poor ones come inside ?—A. I don’t know 
but what one fish is as good as another, but it takes food to make the 
fish. 

Q. Is it not a fact that they feed in close to the shore ?7—A. There is 
food, but not such healthy food as outside. 

Q. That is your theory ?—-A. Yes. 

Q. Then itis altogether a question of food. You think they get 
better food inside ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And if it turned out that they got better food inshore you would 
change your opinion? You would say, then, that you would catch more 
mackere! inshore than off? If you found that the mackerel got their 
food inshore, you would perhaps change your opinion with regard to 
the matter ?—A, Well, if there was better fish inshore than off, I should 
know there was better food inshore. 

Q. Well, if the mackerel feed in eight fathoms, wioeree that is, to- 
day, are they not to be found inshore to-morrow? Don’t the same 
mackerel move about?—A. They move just which way the food moves. 

Q. Then they move about everywhere ?—A. Well, I could not say for 
that. I have caught mackerel for four or five days in one place and not 
seen any again for three weeks. 

‘Q Was that the same school, do you think, or were they moving 
about 7?—A. I think the fish was moving about. 

Q. The first you encountered would be away, and others would fill their 
places ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Off the bend of the island will you not find eight fathoms within 
a mile of the island in many places?—A. Yes, there are many places 
there that you will find eight fathoms within a mile, I presume. 

Q. Within half a mile?—A. Well, I never looked personally on the 
chart. I never calculated to stop around there a great deal, anyhow. 

Q. What you mean is, that if you find them in eight fathoms you 
would get the best mackerel there ?—A. No, I don’t mean that. 

Q. Well, suppose you would catch them in eight fathoms, would you 
call them eel- -grass mackerel 7—A. No, if they were nice fish I should 
not. If they were poor fish, with black bellies, I would call them ell- 
grass mackerel. It doesn’t make any odds if they were caught in two 


’ fathoms. 


2448 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 44 


Epwarp A. Gooains, of Portland, Maine, called on behalf of the 
Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 
Question. You are in what vessel now ?—Answer. The Esperanza. 
Q. You are in here accidentally 7—A. Yes. 
Q. You came in here for a harbor 7—A. Yes. 
Q. You are bound home?—A. Yes. 
Q. You have got through your fishing 7—A. Yes. 
Q. Now, when did you begin to go fishing ?—A. When I was 14 years 


Q. You were born in the year 1—A. 1834. — 

Q. That would make it 1848 when you went fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you living then ?—A. At Trenton, Maine. 

Q. That is the custom-house district of Ellsworth ?—A. Yes. 

. At that time when you first went fishing where did you go?—A. 
I went to Grand Manan. 

Q. How many years were you fishing off Grand Manan ?—A. Seven 
years. 

Q. Until you were 21?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you a skipper any of that time?—A. No; I was always a 
hand. 

Q. Seven years you were a Trenton fisherman off Grand Manan ?—A. 
Yes; Grand Manan and Nova Scotia. 

Q. Now, where did you first go when the season began ?—A. In the 
spring ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Around Nova Scotia. - 

Q. To what part?—A. Digby, Petit Passage, and Brier Island. 

Q. For what ?—A. Codfish. ; 

Q. That was spring fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. During these seven seasons in the spring, when you caught cod off 
that part of Nova Seotia, where did you catch them? How far from 
a ?—A. The principal part 12 miles from land; we judged 12, 14, or 
| 

Q. Did you ever know of the distance being measured any time?—A. 
Only once; around the island. 

Q. What was the nearest to land that you ever fished ?—A. Four 
miles, 

Now, how do you know it was four miles?—A. Well, there was a lit- 
tle dispute there. The natives of the island made a complaint toa man- 
of-war that the American fishermen fished within three miles of the 
land; and the place they called within three miles was ‘“ Gravelly Bot- 
tom,” on the southeast part of Grand Manan, right off from Grand 
Manan, at the southeast end. They measured, and found it was four 
miles from the nearest land to where the American fishermen fished. 
Inside of that is deep water. On that it is shoal. 

Q. So you were fishing on a shoal?—A. Yes; shoal water. 

Q. It turned out to be four miles ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is the nearest you ever went?—A. Yes; the nearest I ever 
fished in an American vessel. 


_ Q. And your codfish you caught twelve or fifteen miles off ?—A. That 
is the nearest we could judge. 


Q. While you were fishing for cod there what bait did you use?—A. 
Herring. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2449 


Q. Did you go in for it?—A. We went in for it. 

(. To what place?—A. A number of places. 

Q. Whatever place was nearest 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you generally go, on what day ?—A. Generally on Satur- * 
day. We used to calculate to go in on Saturday, because we didn’t fish 
on Sundays. : 

Q. None of your vessels fished on Sundays?—A. None I know of. 

Q. Do you know any American vessels that fished inside of three 
miles ?—A. No; I never heard of any. 

Q. Well, you would meet them going in for bait?—A. Yes. 

Q. Was it the custom to talk very freely with one another ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you think you got free and honest reports of where they 
fished ?—A. Well, very near, for the very reason that we lived right 
close by one another. We could find out after a while. 

Q. Do you know of any, during those seven seasons, that fished nearer 
than three miles?—A. No. °* 

Q. Was that cod fishery pretty successful ?—A. Sometimes it was, 
and sometimes not. 

Q. Taken as a whole ?—A. Yes, it was, taken as a whole. 

Q. Did you move to Grand Manan to live?—A. Yes. 

(. When did you move to Grand Manan? The next year after you 
were twenty-one ?—A. The next year after. 

Q. You had a house there and were married ?—A. No; I was married ; 
my wife belonged to the island. 

Q. You went to Grand Manan to live?—A. Yes. 

Q. You engaged in fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Boat-fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You changed from vessel-fishing to boat-fishing 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Describe this boat-fishing. How big were the boats?—A. Twenty 
feet keel. 

Q. She had no forecastle?—A.. No; only a small temporary cuddy we 


_ rigged up ourselves. 


Q. I will go back to the time you were fishing in vessels. Why was 
it you didn’t fish nearer than four miles 7—A. One reason was that they 
would not allow us, and another reason was that we could not do as 
well. 

Q. If you had been allowed, if you had been left to your own prefer- 
ences, which would you do ?—-A. We would prefer to fish outside, for the 


, reason that the boats were in there and they could get more bait than 


we,got. Their own vessels that were there could not do so well inside 
as outside at the time I was there. 

@. What did you learn from the inhabitants, as well as from the ves- 
sels, as to the American vessels? Did they ever tell you that the 
American vessels were within three miles ?—A. No, I never heard only 
the one complaint. That was before I went there to live, and while I was 
there to live I never heard any complaints of the American vessels fish- 
ing inside. _ 

Q. How long were you there?—A. I was there nine years. 

(). During these nine years you had a boat or boats about 20 feet in 
length ?—A. Yes. . 

‘Q. Intended for a single day 7—A. Yes. 

Q. To come in nights?—A. Yes. We took our dinners with us. 

Q. Tell me, if you please, what fishing you did the different seasons of 


_the year in boats?—A. Well, in the spring we used to commence in 


May generally, sometimes a little earlier. 
154 F 


2450 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What did you catch then?—A. We would catch a very few cod- 
fish, mostly hake. 

Q. Well, the hake is a rather inferior fish ?—A. Yes. ; 

(. Were they plenty or few ?—A. They were scattering along in the 
spring. We didn’t calculate to do a great deal anyway. 

Q. Now you have fished seven years outside for cod and nine years 
in boats, I suppose mostly inside ?—A. Yes, mostly inside. 

Q. You can therefore compare them. Now which furnished the great- 
est number and the best fish 7—A. Outside. 

Q. There is no question about it?—A. No question about that. 

Q. The hake is an inferior fish for eating. What does it furnish ?— 
A. It furnishes most oil of anything. 

Q. What is next? After a few scattered cod and hake principally, 
what is next?—A. The next is the hake in July and August to Sep- 
tember. We catch these by night. 

Q. Night fishing. What is next ?—A‘ Generally herring fishing in 
the fall. 

Q. From October to when 7?—A. To Christmas or New Year. 

Q. That finishes the boat fishing for the season?—A. No. Then 
after the herring strikes in one place, it comes in another, and we get 
enough for bait. In winter we get small codfish. They are small, but 
they will do for pickling. 

(). And you set nets in the winter ?—A. Yes. 

(). You set them from the Grand Manan ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it in the nets you catch small cod?—A. No; with line. 

Q. Now, when the codfish are very abundant and better offshore, why 
did you take them inshore with boats ?—A. Because I could be home 
every bight to see my family. I had a house on the island, and I had 
alittle place. I could take care of that and be at home. I could do my 
work and fish too. That is why I preferred boat fishing to vessel fish- 
ing. I would not have to be gone all the time. 

‘Q. Now, that year, 1865, you spoke of nine seasons when you were 
boat fishing—what did you then do ?—A. I moved across into Maine. 

Q. Near Eastport ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the name of the town ?—A. Trescot, Washington County. 

Q. How many years did you live at Trescot ?—A. I lived there from 
1865 to the 28th of this last July. 

Q. All that time working on shore?—A. Yes; I had nothing to do 
with fishing. This year | started fishing again. 

Q. This vessel, the Esperanza, belongs to Rockland ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were to the gulf?—A. Yes. . 

Q. How many were you fitted out for?—A. I understood, when I left, 
we fitted for 240 barrels. 

Q. How much have you got in all ?—A. 110 barrels. 

Q. That is in sea-barrels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is a very unfavorable result ?—A. Well, I should think so. I 
am not used to mackerel-fishing. 

Pie said the 28th July you went; did you go through Canso ?— 
A. es, 

Q. Do you recollect the date?—A. No. 

Q. How many days had you been out when you went through ?—A. 
We were some time getting ready from the time I went aboard. We 
were ten days, I think, going down. 

Q. You can’t recollect the date of your going through ?—A. No. 

Q. You got in here night before last for harbor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been pretty well around the gulf?—aA. Well, I never 


Sn ie 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2451 


was there before. I could not tell you whether I have been pretty near 
around, or half, or a quarter of the way. 

Q. Did you fish inshore as well as outside ?—A. Well, it is useless to 
ask me any questions about that. As the land is low there I would not 
pass my judgment anything about this trip at all. 

Q. About the distance ?—A. No. 

Q. This is your first experience of the bay mackerel-fishing 7—A. Yes. 

Q. It will probably be the last ?—A. I think very likely it will. I 
don’t think I made enough to entice me to go again. 


By Mr. Foster: 
Q. Your last knowledge of Grand Manan was the year 1863 ?— A. Yes. 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. Off what shores did you fish this year in the Esperanza? Did you 
know the shores ?—A. I didn’t know the shores; I was a stranger there. 

Q. You heard from those on board, though, what place?—A. They 
said they were fishing off the west shore, and there was oue place they 

called North Cape, Prince Edward Island. 

Q. East Point, Prince Edward Island, did you hear that?—A. Yes; I 
was there. We came down and up by it. 

Q. Up and down the shore of the island?—A. We did not stop any- 
where. 

Q. You stopped at both ends?—A. Yes; we fished there. 

Q. The fleet was fishing, I understand, chiefly about East Point and 
North Cape ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Many of them ?—A. I should judge around North Cape there were 
fifteen or sixteen sail, perhaps twenty. I did notcount them. At East 
Point I should think something like fifty sail when we were there. 

Q. I suppose you didu’t make any inquiries what they caught 7—A. 
No. 

Q. Did you go down the Cape Breton shore ?—A. Only to Port Hood. 

Q. Did you catch any there?—A. I think fifteen barrels, off shore. 

Q. What other place ?—A. I have mentioned all, except Georgetown. 

Q. Well, that is part of Prince Edward Island. Whatever fish you 
did catch were caught in one or other of those places? You could not 
tell how far off?—A. No; you need not ask me any questions about that. 

Q. You could see the land?—A. Yes. 

@. You saw the cows walking on it ?—A. I don’t think—I don’t know 
_ that I ever saw one walking there; I don’t know that they keep any 
cattle. 

Q. Did you go ashore?—A. Once, in Georgetown. I saw a horse 
there once; that is the only kind of cattle I saw. 

Q. It is a pretty good country for horses?—A. I don’t know, I only 
saw one. 

Q. Speaking seriously, do you mean to say you can’t give an opinion 
as to the distance you were from the shore off East Point ?—A. I could 
not. 

Q. The captain of the Esperanza said they were fitted out for 200 
barrels, not 240.—A. Well, | might have made a mistake; I might have 
misunderstood. 

Q. What was the size of the vessel ?—A. 43 or 44 tons. 

Q. She would not iike to carry more than 200 barrels..: How many of 
a crew have you got?—A. Ten men. 

- Q. Just one question or two now about Grand Manan. You went in 
1848, and fished for seven years on board American vessels?—A. Yes. 


2452 AWARD OF THE FISHPRY COMMISSION. 


Q. You didn’t fish there in American vessels after the Reciprocity 
Treaty came in? It was before that that the complaint was made ?—A. 
I think it was. I was nothing but a boy at the time. 

Q. You paid very little attention to where you were fishing ?—A. I 
know we were not fishing inside of that line, because there was nothing 
there to catch. 

Q. There are plenty of fish to be caught within ?—A. No. 

Q. The boat-fishing when you left there was chiefly inside? Am I not 
correct in saying that the boats catch most of their fish inside 7—A. Yes. 
Sometimes they go out, but very seldom. 

Q. I want to just understand correctly. Nearly all the fish caught 
by the boats are caught inside ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Then the fish are there to be caught 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Very well; and did you as a boy, fishing, pay particular attention 
to whether you were in or out ?—A. We knew we were out, because I 
know all the grounds we were on. We fished on them year after year. 

@. You were asked why you didn’t go in and said you were prohibited ; 
you said because the people didn’t allow you.—A. I said because a man- 
of-war didn’t allow us. 

Mr. DANA. He gave two reasons. 

Mr. Davies. I should say one would be quite sufficient. 

Mr. Dana. He could dodge a man-of-war if 1t was worth while. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Would you dodge a man-of-war to get inside ?—A. I don’t know 
what I might do. I never had the chance to try. 

Q. The temptation was not thrown in your way. Now, I want to ask 
you, do you know anything about the fishing carried on there in winter 
by American vessels ?—A. I do not. : 

Q. Then, for aught you know, they may fish inside altogether in win- 
ter ?—A. They do not. 

_Q. Did I understand you correctly that you understood nothing about 
it? You said you knew nothing about the fishing in there in winter.— 
A. No, nor summer either. 

Q. I asked if you had ever fished aboard an American vessel in 
winter about Grand Manan.—A. No; never. 

Q. At any time of your life?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever see any fishing there in winter ?—A. No. 

: Q. So you absolutely know nothing of it at all?—A. No; I absolutely 
now-— 

Q. Did I understand that you absolutely knew nothing of it at all ?— 
A. I don’t understand your question. I wish you would put it plainer. 

Q. I understand that you never fished on board a vessel in the winter 
about Grand Manan ?—A. I have said. 

Q. And also that you never saw an American vessel fishing in winter 
anywhere about the island ?—A. Well, I could not go over the island all 
at once. I never heard about it. 

Q. Then am I correct in saying you know nothing about it ?—A. I 
know nothing about it further than that. 

Q. I mean within or outside of three miles?—A. I never saw-any 
American vessel around there in the winter that I can recollect. 

Q. Then I am correct in saying you know nothing about whether they 
do or not ’—A. I never saw them. How can I tell ? 

Q. Do you know Walter B. McLaughlin ?—A. I have seen him. 

Q. How many years is it,since you left Grand Manan altogether?—A. 
Twelve years, I think, or thirteen. I left in 1865. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2453 


Q. Then, since you have left Grand Manan you know nothing, I sup- 
pose, of the number of vessels ?—A. No; I have never seen the island, 
that I recollect, since, any more than at a distance. 

Q. As to the period during the last twelve years, you don’t profess to” 
say anything about it at all?—A. No. 

Q. When you were there, after the end of the seven years, you fished 
in boats yourself ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What kind of a man is McLaughlin; a respectable man ?—A. Heis 
considered so. 

(J. Is it possible that the fishing may have changed since you were 
there? I will read Mr. McLaughlin’s statement with reference to the 
Grand Manan fishery. He was asked: “ Now, about how many Ameri- 
can vessels fish on the coast during the season?” He answers: “ It 
would be hard to tell that. It has never been my duty to count them.” 
He was asked: “They come in large numbers and they greatly out- 
number ours?” He answers: “ Yes; our people at Grand Manan fish 
but little in vessels.” Heis asked again: “Do these vessels come in fish- 
ing within three miles?” And he answers: ‘At a certain time of the 
year. In winter it is entirely within. The fall and winter fishing is 
entirely within.” Now that may be the case for the last twelve years ; 
you don’t profess to know?—A. I don’t profess to know anything about 
that. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Q. While you were there you saw no American vessels fishing there ?— 

A. No. . 
No. 45. 


IsAAc BurGEss, of Belfast, Me., fisherman, called on behalf of the 
Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster : ; 


Question. You are one of the sharesmen on board the Eliza Poor, 
Captain Dickie, and are twenty-four years old ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. When did you begin fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence ?—A. In 1868. ; 

2 You must have been a little fellow then?—A. Yes; fifteen years 
old. 

Q. Do you remember the name of the schooner ?7—A. The Oak Grove, 
Captain Burgess. 

(. How many barrels did you take 7—A. 210 barrels. 

Q: Where was she from ?7—A. Belfast. 

Q. How long was she taking them ?—A. She was somewhere in the 
neighborhood of seven or eight weeks. They were taken off shore on 
Bradley. 

Q. Any within three miles 7—A. No. 

Q. Take the next time.—A. 1869. I was in the James Jewett, Cap- 
tain Henry Coombes. 

Q. Where from ?—A. Belfast. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did she take ?—A. 273. 

- Q. Now where were these taken ?—A. On the West Shore, Escumi- 
nac, North Cape, East Point, and some at Magdalens. 

Q. Well, if any of those were taken within three miles of the shore, 
state at what place and how many ?—A. I don’t think we caught any 


_ within three miles of the shore. 


Q. What was the next year ?—A. 1872, 


2454 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What vessel ?—.A. The Mary Louise, Oscar Fitch, captain, from 
Gloucester. 

Q. What was her size ?—A. 70 tons, I think. 

Q. Did you make more than one trip ?—A. Two trips. : 

Q. When did you go into the gulf?—A. We came in the first trip, i 
think, in June. 

Q. What did you do with that first trip ?—A. We took them back to 
Gloucester. 

Q. How long were you gone the first trip ?—A. About a month. 

(. How many barrels did you get ?—A. 273 barrels the first trip. 

Q. Where did you take them ?—A. We took them around the island, 
North Cape, and Magdalen Islands. 

Q. How many at the Magdalens?—A. We got half our trip there. 

Q. How many off the island ?—A. Probably 40 or 50 barrels. 

Q. When fishing off the island, how near shore did you fish ?—A. I 
don’t think we fished less than four miles, four or five. 

Q. Where else did you catch any part of your trip?—A. Some between 
Port Hood and East Point. 

Q. Were those, any of them, within three miles?—A. No. 

Q. Did you get any within three miles that trip?—A. A few ata place 
called Rustico one day within three miles. That is all during that trip. 

Q. Well, how did you happen to be at Rustico?—A. We saw some 
small boats in fishing, springing up, and we went in there and tried 
them. It came on to blow that night and we had to go out. It was in 
the Bend, and we had to get off shore. 

Q. How many barrels did you get?—A. 80 barrels that day, near 
Rustico. 

Q. Take the next year ?—A. That was 1874. I was in the Alice, 
Salem, Captain Elbridge Love, of Booth Bay. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take ?—A. 173 barrels. 

Q. How long were you getting them 7?—A. Somewhere in the neigh- 
borhood of nive weeks. 

Q. When did you begin?—A. We came away from home about the 
1st of August. We were a week, I[ believe, getting down. 

Q. Where were those taken ?—A. They were taken at the Magdalens, 
some around East Point, and some around Port Hood. The most of the 
trip at the Magdalen Is!ands. 

Q. Now the Alice, Salem, is put down that year as having come in on 
the 9th August one trip, and having gone home the 15th of October. 
Are those dates about right? Did you begin about August and end 
about the 15th October ?—A. I think we did. . 

Q. But she is said to have taken 275 barrels ?—A. 173 barrels was all 
we got aboard when I was aboard. 

y .. Who was the fish merchant to whom she packed out?—A. Charles 

. Dyer. 

Q. May you be mistaken 100 barrels ?—A. No; I am not. 

Q. Most of those you say were taken at Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If any of them were taken within three miles, state where ?—A. 
They were not. 

{. Well, this year you are in the Eliza Poor. As we have heard from 
her through others, I will not delay about that. 

By Mr. Weatherbe: 

(. I didn’t take down the year you made two trips and got 273 bar- 
rels. What year was it?—A. That was in 1872. 

Q. Where were you in 1870 and 1871 ?—A. In 1871 I was to work in 
Booth Bay in a factory. 


er a ao 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. — 2455 


Q. In 1874 you were in the Alice ?—A. Yes. 

(). You are sure that was the year ?—A. Yes. 

@. You left her. How many trips did you make ?—A, Only one trip. 
I left her at Portland when she came home that trip. 

Q. Who was the master 7—A. Elbridge Love. 

@. Had you any Nova Scotia fishermen in her ?—A. I don’t know 
that we did. I cannot say. We had all kinds, Spaniards, Portuguese, 
French. 

Q. Any from the provinces 7—A. No; I don’t think we did. 

(). None at all?—A. No. 

(. In some of these other years, did you have fishermen belonging to 
the provinces ?—A. No; mostly from the State of Maine—from Belfast. 

Q. But this year, 1874, you had foreigners ?—A. Yes; we had mostly. 

Q. Not much accustomed to fishing ?—A. Poor fishermen generally. 

(). How many tons was she ?—A. I think from 71 to 76 tons; 71, I 
am pretty sure. 

Q. The previous vessel, what was her name 2—A. The Oak Grove; 
that was 1868. 

Q. In 1869 7—A. I was in the James Jewett. 

Q. The next one, what was the name?—A. That was in 1872—the 
Mary Louise. 

Q. Had you Spaniards and Portuguese that trip?—A. No; mostly 
Americans. 

Q. What was her tonnage?—A. I could not say exactly what the 
tonnage was. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 or 75 tons. 

Q. You caught your mackerel four miles off ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What proportion?—A. Half of them. I could not tell. 

Q. I suppose that would be the distance you would select as being 
good fishing 7—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That would be the best fishing you have ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I suppose most of the fishermen fished that distance ?—A. Yes} 
they generally fished off there, near four or five miles. 

Q. It is considered about the best fishing, four or five miles ?—A. 
Yes ; it is. 

Q. I suppose in some places the fish would go in three and a half 
miles ?—A. Yes, some fish do. 

Q. You would not mind coming in three and a half miles if you were 
four miles out. I suppose sometimes they would manage to get in 
three miles ?—A. No vessels I have ever been in. 

Q. I am not speaking of the vessels, but the fish—is there anything 
to stop them at four miles ?—A, No. 

Q. There is no obstruction of any ki Just as good water 7—A. 
Yes ; only a little shallower. 

Q. Just as good feed ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Perhaps better feed ?—A. Well, most generally the gales drive 
them off, but they come back again. 

(. I suppose when the wind is a little off shore the best feed would 
be inside, closer in?—A. Yes. 

Q. Closer inside than four miles?—A. I should say so. 

Q. They would then go in pretty close?—A. Yes. 

- Q. You would then go in there and drift off ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the fleet would do that. We have evidence of that. The 
fleet would run in as close as they could get and then drift off —A. Yes; 
that was the way they fished. 

Q. As close as they could get in?—A. Not within four miles. 

Q@. I was referring to a little closer. I wanted to cone in a little 


- 


y 


2456 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


closer if I could. I was throwing a little bait?—A. Well, probably 
there might have been some fellows go in handier. 
Q. Some would go in nearer ?—A. Yes; some of the captains went in. 
Q. Let us make a compromise and say three miles and a half. You 
don’t object to that, do you? (No answer.) 


No. 46. 


CHARLES H. Brier, of Belfast, Me., called on behalf of the Govern- 

ment of the United States, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Trescot: 

Question. You are a Belfast man ?—Answer. Yes. 
. When did you get here ?—A. Night before last. 
You came in the Eliza Poor ?—A. Yes. 
What brought her in ?—A. The storm. 
How old are you 7—A. Twenty-five. 
. How long have you been fishing 7—A. Fifteen years. 
When did you start ?—A. When I was ten years old. 
. What sort of fishing have you been doing ?—A. Mackerel-fishing. 
Where ?—A. Four years in the bay and the rest on our coast. 
What four years in the bay 7—A. 767, ’68, ’70, and ’77. 
. Well, the first year you weut in what vessel ?—A. The Atlantic. 
Where from ?—A. Belfast. 
Where did you go to fish 7—A. To the bay. 
Whereabouts in the bay ?—A. From East Point to North Cape. 
Did you make one or two trips 7—A. One. 
. How long was it ?—A. Two or three months. 
. Well, don’t you recollect more particularly? Do you mean two or 
three ?—A. About three. 

Q. What did you catch ?—A. We caught mackerel. 

Q. What was the result of your fishing ?—A. 200 barrels. 

Q. Now, what proportion of these did you take within three miles ?— 
A. Of the 200 barrels we took 100 within three miles. 

Q. Then in 1868, what vessel were you in ?—A. The Rippling Wave. 

Q. Where were you that year ?—A. From North Cape to East Point 
and Escuminac. 

Q. How many trips ?—A. One. 

Q. What tonnage was she ?7—A. Over 100 tons. 

(). How long did your trip last ?—A. Three months. 

Q. What did you take 7—A. 250 barrels. 

Q. Now, with regard to those 250 barrels, what proportion of them 
were taken within three miles ?—A. They were taken off shore mostly. 
Q. Where were you in 1870 ?—A. In the Eliza Poor. 

Q. Where were you that year?—A. We-went around the island to 
Escuminac, the West Shore. 

Q. Was that one or two trips ?—A. One trip. 

Q. What did you take that year?—A. About 200 barrels. We were 
there about three months. 

Q. Now what proportion of that catch was taken within three miles? 
—A. About one-half. 

Q. Then in 1877 what vessel were you in?—A. The Eliza Poor. 

Q. What did you do that year?—A. We got 110 barrels. 

Q. That is the same voyage you are coming in now?—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you go?—A. The 9th August. 


Q. When did you come out?—A. About a week ago; we came out 
last Sunday. 


CELLEL LOL ELE LLOE 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ' 2457 


Q. You got 110 barrels. What proportion of those were takén within 
three miles?—A. About one-half. 

Q. Then only four years you have been in the bay ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. The rest you have been on the coast; now, how does your fishing 
on the coast compare in point of success with the fishing in the gulf?— ° 
A. It is better on our coast the last ten years. 

Q. I am talking of the time you have been there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is the fishing on the coast as expensive as in the gulf?—A. I don’t 
think. 

Q. In the fishing on the coast that you made, did you make long or 
short trips ?—A. Short trips. 

Q. Do you recollect your last trip?—A. Yes; we got between 900 and 
1,000. 

Q. In what time ?—A. Five months, [ should think. 

Q. Well, you have been fishing fifteen years. As between fishing in 
the gulf and fishing in the bay, as a fishing industry, which is best 7— 
A. I should rather fish on the coast, a great deal. 

Q. Do you know anything about Prince Edward Island boat-fishing? 
—A. I have seen a good deal of it this year; we met the boats off the 
North Cape and East Point. , 

Q. How far did they come off?—A. A mile and a half to two and 
three miles. 


By Mr. Doutre: 


Q. Since fishing on the American coast is so much better than in the 
bay, why do you go in the bay ?—A. Well, it failed this year; we had 
to go in the bay. 

Q. When it is better at home you remain there, and when it is. better 
in the gulf. you go there?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is quite sensible. You say it is not so expensive fishing on 
the coast. Please explain why.—A. Well, it does not cost so much. I 
don’t know exactly. It is a good deal more expensive coming down to 
the bay than home. 

Q. Well, why? Is it because you have more hands, or that more 
provisions are eaten—that they have a better appetite in the bay than 
on the coast? What is it?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. You don’t fit on the American coast for three months because you 
may be only a week out ?—A. We fit for three or four weeks. 

Q. Very well, but you are not starting on such a long expedition as 
when you go to the bay. That is the reason you don’t fit out so com- 
pletely. Is itso?—A. We mostly always have to fit out once or twice 
in the bay: 

Q. Suppose you had to fit out for the same length of time on the 
American coast that you have in the gulf, would it cost much less?—A, 
No, about the same thing. 

Q. When you were in the Atlantic in 1867 where did she fish 7—A. 
In the bend of the island, from East Point to North Cape. 

Q. How far from the shore have you been fishing ?—A. Fishing from 
ten to fifteen miles off most of the time. 

Q. Did you go near shore?—A. Right off Malpeque we ran in. 

Q. When you were going in the harbors didn’t you fish in the neigh- 


borhood around the island?—A. We fished inshore part of the time. 


The great part of the time off shore, ten or fifteen miles, I should say. 
Q. Can you state now where you were longer fishing, whether it was 


_ out ten miles, as you say, or near the shore 7—A. Most of the time off 


shore. 


2458 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What have you to remind you of that?—A. I think because it 
would take quite a while to run inshore when we wanted to. 

Q. What do you call inshore ?—A. Two or three miles off. 

Q. Can you find out easily whether you are three miles or four miles 
or five miles off ?—A. I don’t know how we can. 

Q. Sappose you were about five or four miles, would you call that 
off shore or inshore ?—A. I would call it inshore. 

Q. Then, what leads you to say you caught about half your trip 
inshore and half out ?—A. Because we did, I suppose. We had a license 
to fish inshore, and we fished there. 

Q. You were not afraid of going in there; so long as you found fish 
you fished there?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, you had no reason whatever, had you, to take a note of the 
quantity taken inshore or outshore—what reminds you now of the fact ?— 
A. I don’t know anything to remind me, only that we fished about half 
the time off shore, and caught about as many fishing off shore as in. 

Q. In your second trip did you follow about the same spots as in the 
first trip?—A. We went to North Cape, Escuminac, and West Shore. 

Q. How far from shore?—A. Sometimes we would be in sight of land 
and sometimes off shore. 

Q. Well, if you were called upon to state what proportion you caught 
inshore and what proportiou off shore?—A. We caught them mostly 
off shore. 

Q. Well, that is not very definite?—A. We might have got 50 of the 
250 barrels inshore. 

Q. Not more than that? In the Eliza Poor you got more inshore than 
that ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Both years?—A. Yes. 

Q. The mackerel that you caught on the Amercan coast—did you salt 
it, or was it sold fresh ?—A. It was salted. 

Q. How many trips did you make during the five months ?—A. We 
carried about 250 barrels a trip—from 50 to 250. The largest trips were 
250. 

Q. Since 1870 you have net fished on the American coast. What use 
did you make of the time during these years ?—A. I worked on shore 
part of the time, and part of the time I fished. 

Q. From 1870 to 1877 you did not fish at all ?—A. 1877? 

Q. The last time you came in the bay was 1870?—A. Well, I fished 
on our coast. 

Q. During that interval ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you fish last year ?—A. Yes. 

@. What was your catch ?—A. 900 or 1,000 barrels. 

Q. What distance from the coast generally is the mackerel taken on 
the American shore ?—A. Mostly off shore. 

Q. For the last year or two ?—A. The most of our fish are abroad off. 


No. 47. 


DrExtTER F. WALSH, of Belfast, Me., fisherman, called on behalf of 
the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 
Question. You live at Portland ?—Answer. No, at Belfast. 
Q. You were in the Eliza Poor ?—A. Yes. 


Q. What was the first year you were ever mackereling in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence ,—A. 1867. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2459 


Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. 300. 

Q. Where 7A. At Magdalens. 

Q. Anywhere else ?—A. We caught about all there, I think. 

Q. Take 1869, what vessel were you in?—A, In the Morning Star,.» 
Captain Moore. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take 7—A. I think we took, 
in 1869, 240 barrels in two trips. 

Q. How long were you here ?—A. About four months in the bay. 

Q. Where were these taken ?—A. At the Magdalens mostly. 

Q. Where else?—A. I don’t remember fishing anywhere else—West 
Shore and Prince Edward Island. 

Q. In 1876 you were in the gulf again?—A. No. 

Q. Were you not in the gulf last year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In what schooner ?—A. The Alice M. Gould. 

(. How long were you here ?—A. Four months, two trips—one for 
cod and one for mackerel. 

Q. How long were you in the gulf mackereling ?—A. Two months. 

(). How many men have you had ?—A. 14 mackereling. 

Q. How many barrels have you got ?—A. 40. 

Q. In two months?—A. Yes. © : 

Q. Where were these taken?—A. At Port Hood, Cape George, and 
East Point. 

Q. I need not ask you whether you made any money last year ?—A. 
I was cook and made $50 a month. 

Q. But from catches was any money made ?—A. No. The crew came 
home in debt. 

Q. Not only the vessel but the crew?—A. The vessel and the crew 
both. 

Q. This year you have been in the Eliza Poor?—A. Since the 4th 
of August. 

Q. We have had an account of the trip; I think I won’t go over that. 
again. 

By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Were you master of these vessels ?—A. No. 

Q. You were in the Morning Star in 1869. Who was her captain 
then ?—A. George Moore. 

To oe you were there this year how many barrels did you take ?— 
A. 120. 

@. Where were you fishing?—A. Around the west shore of Prince 
Edward Island, and Escuminac, some around East Point. 

Q. Every year there are more or less got there?—A. Yes. 
< 2. The first year, 67, you were not there at all?—A. No; at the Mag- 

alens. 

Q. And since that you have been generally fishing those grounds ?— 
A. Yes. The second year we fished mostly at the Magdalens. 

Q. The last year you have been fishing over this ground ?—A. Yes. 
I haven’t been at the Magdalens this year at all. 

Q. When; ’76?—A. No; I was not there last year. 
: x Why didu’t you go there last year and this year ?—A. I don’t know 

why. 

Q. The fleet was fishing around East Point and Port Hood ?—A. We 
had news from the Magdalens that they were not doing anytbing there, 
I suppose. We generally know what is going on all round the bay. 

Q. You got a very small catch last year?—A. Yes. 

Q. That was not the average 7?—A. Yes, I think it was. 


2460 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What time did you go in?—A. We went in, I think, some time 
about the 15th of August. > 

Q. You missed the best catches of the year ?—A. We were cod-fishing 
when the best mackereling was going on. All the vessels did poorly 
anyway. Only a few vessels got a trip. 

Q. in ’69 you were off the island too?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you catch many off the island shore?—A. No. We got most 
of our trip off the Magdalens. 

Q. How far off the island did the boats fish ?—A. Four or five miles. 

Q. The last witness said half a mile to a mile and a half or two miles? 
—aA. They fished all distances. 

Q. Why did you say four miles, then? Have you seen them over a 
mile or two or three miles ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is not that generally the distance they fish ?—A. I could not say. 

Q. Why; haven’t you been sufficiently long ?—A. I have seen them 
fishing inside and outside of three miles. 

Q. Haven’t you been there sufficiently long this season and last season 
to see ?—A. I should say the boats we saw this year were fishing three 
aniles off. 

Q. But you got your fish inside ?—A. Some of them. 

Q. The boats were outside of you ?—A. Sometimes they were. 

Q. How far would you be off when the boats would be outside of you? 
—A. Perhaps a mile. 

Q. Then they might be outside of you and still be well within three 
miles ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You give it as your evidence that most of the time the boats were 
four miles from land; and when you say that you caught none within 
three miles, you mean that you caught them at the same distance as 
the boats ?—A. Some of them fished foar miles off and some further. 

Q. The bulk I mean; do you mean that?—A. Yes; they fished four 
or five miles off. 
or Do you know Charles H. Brien, who was examined here ?—A. 

es. 

Q. He stated that the boats fished from half a mile to a mile or two. 
Did he tell the truth or not ?—A. I have seen them as near as that. 

Q. You don’t agree with him ?—A. Yes, I do. 


No. 48. 


LAWRENCE LONDRIGAN, of St. Mary’s Bay, Newfoundland, fisher- 
man, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn 
and examined. 

By Mr. Foster: 


Question. You were born in Newfoundland ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. How long have you been away from there ?—A. Three years this 
coming fall. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. Twenty-eight or twenty-nine years last fall. 

Q. What did you do the first year you left Newfoundland ?—A. The 
first year I was in America. I trawled on the coast of Maine. 

Q. What schooner ?—A. Liberator. 

Q. From what port did she sail ?—A. Westport, Me. 

Q. You went trawling for what ?—A. Codfish and hake principally. 

Q. Whereabouts did you trawl ?—A. Off the coast of Maine and along 
Seal Island Bay. 

Q. You made short trips?—A. Yes. 

Q- Were you getting fish to salt !—A. To sell green. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Z461 


Q. To be salted ?—A. We salted them ourselves. 
- Q. What bait did you use ?—A. The first summer we used clams and 
afterwards pogies and menbaden. 


Q. Salted ?—A. The clams were salted, but the pogies were kept in » 


ice. 
Q. Not sliver?—A. We iced them ourselves. 
Q. What were you doing last year ?—A. I was mackereling last sum- 


(. In what vessel ?—A. Lizzie Poore. 

Q. On the United States coast ?—Yes. 

@. What were you doing last winter ?—A. I left to go in a vessel for 
frozen herring last December. 

Q. What is the name of the vessel ?—A. J. W. Roberts. 

Q. Where did she hail from ?—A. Rockport, Me. 

@. Who was her captain ?—A. P. Conley. 

Q. When did she start from Rockport ?—A. 26th December. 

Q. How long were you gone?—A. We were at Beaver Harbor and 
round Grand Manan about two weeks. 

Q. Were other vessels there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. Electric Flash, Madawaska Maid, Mary Turner, 
Episcatawa. 

Q.. How many frozen herring did you get 7—A. 300,000. 

@. Where did you cbtain them ?—A. Some were bought frozen and 
some we bought green and took ashore, and some we froze on the deck 
of the vessel. 

Q. What did you pay for them ?—A. For most of them fifty ee a 
hundred ; for about 25,000, forty five cents a hundred. 

Q. Did you catch any yourselves 7—A. No, we had no means of catch- 
ing any. 

Q. You purchased them for money ?—A. Yes, for money. 

Q. This summer you have been in the Lizzie Poore ?—A. Yes. 


Q. Have you any idea what your share is going to be?—A. No, [have 
not the slightest. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. The fish you bought down at Grand Manan were frozen partly on 
deck and partly on shore !—A. Yes, and some were bought frozen. 

Q. Those you bought in a green state you landed?—A. Some of them. 

Q. And froze them there yourselves, and then transferred them to the 
vessel 7—A. Yes. 


No. 49. 


RICHARD HOPKINS, of Belfast, Me., fisherman, called on behalf of the 
Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Question. How old are you ?—Answer. Sixty-three years. 
Q. Where do you live ?—A. At Belfast. 
q. Were you born there ?—A. No, at Vinehaven. 
. How far is that from Belfast ?—A. Thirty-five miles. 
- Q. How many years have you been fishing ?—A. Forty years.. 
Q. What vessel are you now in ?—A. Esperanza. 
Q. When did she come here ?—A. On Wednesday, I think. 
Q. Who is captain of the vessel ?—A. Captain Smalley. 
Q. She came from the gulf. How long have you been there ?—A. 


About five weeks. 


A 


2462 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. =, 


Q. What sort of a catca have you had ?—A. A small catch... ~ 
Q. How many barrels ?—A. One hundred and ten barrels. Ten hands. 
Q. What is the tonnage of the vessel ?—A. Forty-four tons: __ 

Q. Where did you fish during that trip?—A. We fished mostly up to 
the north part of Prince Edward Island. : 

Q. When you say you fished to the north part of the island, did you 
do much fishing within three miles of the coast ?—A. Not much within 
three miles. Pos ; 

Q. What portion of tbe 110 barrels did you catch within three miles 
of the shore ?—A. I should say about three-quarters off shore. 

Q. And about one-quarter inshore?—A. About one-quarter inshore. 
What I call inshore is two or three miles off. 

Q. Do you think you gave a fair trial to the inshore fishery? Did you 
fish enough inshore to test the inshore fishery ?—A. Yes. We went in 
to see if there were fish there. 

Q. During the forty years you have been fishing, have you been fish- 
ing for mackerel or for cod, or for both ?—A. A little at both. 

Q. Have you been cod-fishing and then mackerel-fishing, or. doing 
both together ?—A. I have been employed in the fishing business most 
part of the time. : 

Q. Of the forty years you have been fishing, how many years were you 
in the gulf?—A. I think twenty-five seasons. 

Q. Do you find fishing in the bay to-day what it used to be in old 
times ?—A. No. st 

Q. What is the difference ?—A. Mackerel are not so plentiful as they 


. used to be. 


Q. Of the twenty-five years you have fished there, what proportion of 
your fish did you catch outside, and what proportion within three miles of 
the shore?—A. I never saw a large deck of fish, during the time I was 
there, caught very pear the shore. They were mostly small decks. The 
best fishing I have seen was on what we call Bank Bradley. 

Q. That has been during the whole of the time you have been fish- 
ing?—A. Yes. I should say that nearly three-fourths of the fish I have 
taken in the bay have been taken off shore, 8, 15, 25, and 30 miles off. 

Q. During those forty years have you done much fishing on the United 
States coast?—A. Yes; I have fished a good deal in the States during 
that time. 

Q. Do you mean the coast of Maine, or clear down where the maek- 
erel go ?—A. The coast of Maine. 

Q. You have not done much fishing on the shore from Cape Cod to 
Hatteras?—A. No. 

Q. Or off on the Georges?—A. No. 

Q. You could not really compare the coast-fishing with the bay-fishing, 
from what you have seen of it?—A. No. : 

Q. You don’t know much of the United States coast-fishing 7—A. No. 

Q. When you did fish off that coast, was it with seine or hand line ?- 
—A. Hand line. 

_ Q. Then you don’t know anything about seine fishing, which has come 
in of late years?—A. I have not been seining. 

Q. With regard to your fishing in the bay. What did you find to be 
the best fishing-ground in the bay, during the forty years you have tried 
there {—A, I think I have caught most fish at Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Are the Magdalen Islands a tolerably safe place ?—A. I consider 
them about as safe as any part of the bay where you get mackerel. 

Q. As safe as the Bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes ; safer. 

Q. Why ?—A. The Bend of Prince Edward Island is not a very safe 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | ; 2463 


Stace’ fish unless you are well acquainted with the eee which are 
hard to get into in a storm. 

Q. Do you know anything about the shore boat-fishing at Prince Ed- 
ward Island ?—A. No; I don’t know more about it than that I have 
seen them off fishing a great many times in going up and down the shore. 

Q. How far off did you meet the small boats 7—A. One, two, three, or 
four miles cff. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. You have been fishing a good many years, and you seem to have 
preferred the gulf fishing to that on the American coast ?—A. I have 
been in the gulf eighteeu seasons mackereling. 

Q. I thought you said twenty-five seasons ?7—A. I was eighteen sea- 
sons mackereling, and the balance fishing for codfish. 

Q. Have you fished in Bay Chaleurs proper ?—A. Yes; I have been 
in Chaleurs Bay. 

Q. Some of the witnesses have spoken of Chaleurs Bay as a pretty 
good fishing-ground; would you state it to be a pretty fair fishing- 
ground?—A. Well, I don’t think it is a very good place to fish in. I 
never fished as much there as below; not half as much. 

Q. What is the matter with it fA. We never could find mackerel 
the same as in other places. 


Q. Did you try it of late years or further back?—A. I have not fished 


there much within ten years. 
Q. Previous to that you fished there ?—A. Yes, more. 
Q. Every year more or Jess ?—A. Yes. 


Q. When you were in Chaleurs Bay and found poor fishing, did 2 


you go far up ?—A. Not a great way up; not more than 10 or 15 miles 
up the bay. | 

Q. What are the boundaries of Chaleurs Bay—from Miscou Point to 
Port Daniel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When you bave been fishing there, did you ever go along the 
shores 7?—A. Yes, we followed along the shores on both sides. 

Q. The fleet used to fish there?—A. Yes, on both sides; but not very 
handy in to those shores, fur we never could find fish very handy in to 
those shores. 

Q. The center of the bay is as good fishing ground as the sides 2A. 
The center of the bay is fully better. 

Q. Your fish were caught mostly in the center of the bay, I suppose ? 
—A. Yes, mostly down at the mouth of the bay. 

@. You have not followed up the bay at all ?— A. No. 

Q. Perhaps. you never went up at all?—A. Yes, I have gone up as 
far as Paspebiac. 

Q. How many times ?—A. Eight or ten times. 

Q. Was the fleet accustomed to fish down at the mouth of the bay er 


‘to go up ?—A. During the latter part of the season they fish below. 


Q. What do you mean ?—A. I never was there fishing in the fore 
part of the season. 


Q. Then you don’t know ?—A. Not for the first part of the season. 


The latter part of the season they fish below. 


Q. Do you know whether any bait which the fish follow is to be found 
round the shores—brit, for instance?—A. Yes, I have seen them in the 
water frequently. 

Q. Where do you find them ?—A. You see them on the fishing ground. 

Q. I mean in the bay. Do you find them in round that shores ?—A. 


‘I never took notice whether they were about in that bay much. Prob- 
ably I have seen them. I don’t recollect about it now. 


2464 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Leaving Bay Chaleurs, have you fished along the west coast of 
New Brunswick ?—A. Not much. 

Q. We have had evidence that some of the fleet fished there. Was 
your vessel among them?—A. A good many vessels go where I don’t 
see them during the time they are in the bay. 

Q. Did you go farther north than Bay Chaleurs—to Bonaventtre and 
up round the River St. Lawrence ?—A. I have been at Bonaventure 
several times. 

Q. Have you been up at Seven Islands ?—A. No. 

Q. You never fished at Seven Islands?—A. No; I have never beep 
there. 

). Have you been master of a vessel ?—A. I have been pilot and 
master of a vessel in the bay six times only. 

Q. Have you been along the shore of River St. Lawrence ?—A. Not 
much. 

Q. That part of the fisheries you don’t know about ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Whether the fish are taken inshore or out you cannot say, not 
having been there?—A. I have been round Anticosti fishing; we never 
did much there. 

Q. Fishing for mackerel round “Anticosti?—A. Mackereling. I 
never did much there. 

Q. Coming down to Cape Breton; you have been at Margaree, of 
course 7—A. Yes. 

: Q. AR vo time of year did you generally go to fish there 7—A. 
n the fall. 

Q. Is there any particular time when fishermen run to Margaree ?— 
A. At the last of August and September. 

Q. Is Sydney one of the places you went to?—A. I never fished there. 

Q. Have you fished off Port Hood ?—A. I have. 

Q. And from Cheticamp down to Margaree ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have also fished at Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What parts of the island do you prefer ?—A. At East Point, and 
between that and the Chapels. 

Q. Between the two Chapels is good fishing ground?—A. Yes. We 
found some there this season. 

Q. The fleet generally go there more or less?—A. I have seen small 
fleets there, never a large fleet. 

4 oh you been in any of the harbors along Prince Edward Island? 
— . es. 

Q. Have you fished off Rustico and Malpeque?—A. Not much off 
Rustico, some off Malpeque. 

Q. And oft Cascumpeque ?—A. Very little. 

Q. Off North Cape?—A. Yes. 

Q. Off Miminegash 7—A,. Yes. ; 

s Po Per ae fish more or less at the different places where you 

Q. Is Margaree considered by fishermen to be very good fishing 
ground '—A. It has not been very good of late years. 

Q. Was it formerly so considered?—A. I have seen good fishing 
there. 

Q. I believe the fishing grounds are changing. For instance, this 
year you have not been to Bank Bradley ?—A. No. 

Q. W hy did you not go there ?—A. We had heard from there. 

Q. That nothing was to be had there ?—A. I have not heard of any- 
thing being taken there. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2465 


Q. The same with Bank Orphan. You have not been there this 
year ?7—A. No. 

Q. Have you been at the Magdalen Islands ?—A. In sight of them. 

Q. You did not catch anything there?—A. No. 

Q. So the fish are not now so much at the old places where you used 
to find them 20 years ago?—A. No. 

Q. In what direction is the change tending? Are the fish nearer the 
shore than they used to be years ago?—A. I don’t think any nearer 
than they used to be—not the body of the fish. — 

Q. This year about one-half of your catch was taken near the shore ?7— 
A. We did not get but very few of ours inshore this season. 

Q. Did the fleet use purse-seines in deep water?—A. I did not see a 
seine hove in the bay. . 

Q. Why don’t they use purse-seines in deep water if the fish are 
there?—A. I don’t know. They don’t very often heave them till they 
see the mackerel when schooling. 

P Q. Did you see any mackerel schooling there in deep water?—A. IL 
id not. 

Q. And therefore you did not throw your purse-seine?—A. We did 
not have a seine to throw. We had hand lines. 

Q. What character are the fish you have got? What qualities—No. 1,. 
No. 2, or No. 3?—A. I should say they would go by the cull here about 
one-half 2’s and one-half 1’s. 

Q. Is that what you call a fair average for the catch ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it better than the average catch as regards quality 7—A. The- 
quality is not so good. I have been here a great many falls when three- 
quarters would be 1’s. : 

Q. Would I be correct in assuming that of the fish caught by your: 
vessels in the bay three-quarters are 1’s ?—A. Not this season. 

Q. Generally 7—A. Yes, as a general thing they used to beso in the fall,. 
say from 1st August up to to 20th October. 

Q. About three-quarters 1’s and the others 2’s ?—A. Yes, that used 
to be about the average. 

Q. I suppose you left the bay on account of the storm of the 22d ?— 
A. There have been no fish caught since then. 

Q. Did the storm cause you to leave 7—A. We left because there was 
no mackerel. 

Q. Before the storm came on the mackerel were there ?—A. The 
mackerel were going—pretty well thinning out, I suppose, by the appear- 
* ance of things. 

Q: After the storm of the 22d they disappeared ?—A. I saw none 
after the storm. 

Q. Is it not customary for mackerel to disappear after a storm ?—A. 
Not in all cases. It was getting late for them. 

Q. I have heard it stated that when a storm comes on the mackerel 
generally disappear, and you don’t see them for some days ?—A. That 
is a common thing. 

Q. You saw mackerel before the storm of the 22d?—A. Yes. 

Q. They were not seen afterwards?—A. The day before the storm I 
saw mackerel and caught some. 

-Q. Did you see any afterwards ?—A. No. 

Q. So that-it always, or very nearly always, happens that after a 
heavy storm you do not see mackerel for some days, do you?—A. No; 
_ but after a week’s time you should see them if they are there. : 
Q. They return aftera week’s time?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is there any difficulty in ascertaining the distance from the land ? 
155 F 


2466 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


For instance, if you were out 2,3, or 4 miles would there be any diffi- 
culty in telling the distance from the shore?—A. Well, no, not much 
difficulty about telling it. 

Q. You think there would be no difficulty in telling whether you were 
two, three, or four miles off?—A. You can tell when you are out ten 
miles from land. When you are off ten miles Prince Edward Island, it 
looks low. 

Q. Is there any difficulty when you are two, three, or four miles off, in 
ascertaining where you are exactly ?—A. When you get the opinion of 
four or five men you can judge within a mile or half a mile. 

Q. You think it would require the opinions of four or five men?—A. 
To see how they agree on it. Some might say they were four or five 
miles out, when they were not more than two miles from shore. 

Q. They might think they were four or five miles out when they were 
only two?—A. Yes. : 

Q. One witness told us that a great many fish were taken four miles 
from land, and that there was good fishing-ground four miles out; is 
that a fact ?—A. Who was it said so? 

Q. A witness who was examined here to-day. What do you think of 
the statement that there is a very gogd fishing-ground just four miles 
out?—A. There might be, but I don’t: know where it is. 

Q. You have been many years on the American coast?—A. Yes. 

Q. Fishing mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many miles from the coast did you as a general rule take 
your mackerel ?—A. I have been out 60 miles. 

Q. Is that the general distance?—A. No. 

— What is the general distance?—A. Probably from 15 to 20 miles 
off. 

Q. Are there many traps and pounds along the coast for catching 
mackerel ?—A. No. 

Q. You don’t know about those, for you have not fished along the 
shores ?—A. I never fished along the shore much. 

Q. You have never been employed in connection with traps and 
pounds ?—A. No. 

Q. = you know if much mackerel is caught in the traps and pounds? 
—A. No. 

Q. What years were you fishing on the American coast ?—A. I was 
there a year ago this fall. 

: ta What other years ?—A. I was fishing there three years ago this 
all. 

Q. Five years ago, were you there then ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Was the fishing you had then pretty good ?—A. Yes, very good. 

Q. Has it been increasing or diminishing ?—A. It has increased. 

Q. Within what time?—A. Up to one year ago. This’ season it has 
been nothing scarcely. 

Q. Nothing at all?—A. There has been some fishing. 

Q. Were 1875 and 1876 very good years ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How were 1870 and 1871?—A. The fishing was fair. 

Q. What do you call fair?—A. It was just about an average of the 
last fifieen years. 

Q. Have you noticed any decrease in fishing on that coast within the 
last ten years ?—A. Some seasons the fishing was not as good, but 
mackerel have been there during that time. 

Q. The mackerel have not been taken, but may have been in the 
water 7—A, Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2467 


Q. When you were in Bay St. Lawrence were you in the same vessel 
all the time ?—A. No, different vessels. 

Q: What vessels were you in ?—A. It would take me some time to re- 
member all the names. There were Oastlemaine, 8. S. Lewis, City Bilee, 
Bloomer, Clara, Lapwing, Forest Queen, Oak Grove. 

Q. What year were you in the Forest Queen 1A, I think it was 
1854. 


Q. You were not in her in 1864, were you ?—A. No. 

Q. What year were you in the Oak Grove ?—A. The first year of the 
war, I think. 

Q. That would be 1861 ?-—A. Yes. 

Q. Who was the captain ?—A. Captain Burgess. 

Q. Any other vessel ?—A. Circassian. 

Q. What eatch did you take in the Oak Grove 1A. About 160 bar- 
rels, 1 think. I know it was a small trip. 

Q. Were youin the bay in 1867 and 1868?—A. I was there in 1863. 

Q. Had your vessel a license ?—A. No.. 

Q. What was her name ?—A. I think her name was the same as the 
vessel 1 am now in—Esperanza. ~. 

2 hi you had no license when in the gulf any of those years ?— 

A. No 

Q. How do you know that the vessels had no license ?—A. The crew 
had always to pay part of the license fee, and I do not pay any. 

Q. Do you attath much importance to the bay fishing? Do you 
value it much as a privilege 7—A. It has not been much of a privilege 
to me for the two or three last trips I have made there. 

Q. Speaking generally as a fisherman of the United States, do you 
think the right to go down to the bay to fish is of much value ?—A. It 
does not seem to be much of late years. 

Q. I don’t mean to limit you to this year or last year, but I mean the 
right of fishing generally ?—A. For the last four years there have been 
but very few American vessels fishing in the bay. 

Q. Do you look upon it as a valuable fishing-ground; you seem to 
have devoted most of your life to it in preference to anything else 
apparently ?—A. People have a great many minds about that. They 
might think it valuable when they started to go there, and afterwards 
think it is not. 

Q. What is the general opinion among fishermen—that it is valuable 

or not?—A. They think it has not been very valuable lately. I used 
’ to think it was valuable once. 

Q. The catches were very large at one time 7?—A. Pretty good some 
seasons. ~ 

Q. The years the catches were large you considered it valuable, and 
the years the catches were small you did not consider it valuable ?—A. 
Yes. When there was good fishing, and the fish fetched fair prices, it 
was a valuable fishery. 

Q. Do you think the privilege of going to the bay is one of any value? 
—A. It has not been so for the last three or four years, but before that 
I think a man would do as well there as going anywhere fishing. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Q. Mr. Davies has been very anxious to know what you think of the 
value of the privilege of fishing in the bay. Do you think it would be 
worth while for the government. and people of the United States to pay 
re million dollars a year for the privilege of fishing in it?—A. No, I 

Oo not. 


2468 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Mr. Davies asked you if you had this year seen any of the fish 
schooling out off shore, and you told him no. Have you seen any mack- 
erel schooling inshore ?—A. I did not see a school of mackerel while I. 
was there. 

Q. Either inshore or out ?—A. No. a 

Q. Have you seen any of the horse mackerel this year in the bay ?— 
A. No. 

_ Q. Mr. Davies asked you also about fishing along the coast of Prince 
Edward Island, and you spoke of fishing about East Point back and 
forth. How far off did you fish, as a rule, when you fished at the island? 
—A, This season ? 
Q. Yes.—A. All the way from six to eight and ten miles. 
Q. Mr. Davies asked you why you had not been to Banks Bradley 
and Orphan this year, and you said there were ‘no fish there. Did you 
mean to say that the fishing at Banks Bradley and Orphan has fallen 
off, as a general rule, or only this year ?—A. I was not there, but I un- 
derstood there was not anything there. I learned that by other vessels. 
Q. This year?—A. At that time. ° : 
Q. You told Mr. Davies you thought in old times that about three- 
fourths of the mackerel caught in the bay used to be No. 1’s—how far 
back do you mgan? Do you refer to this year, last year, or year before, 
or a good while back ?—A. A good while back. 
Q. How many years back 7—A. Twenty or thirty. 
Q. You were also asked whether you left the bay on account of the 
storm, and you said no?—A. We did not leave on account of the 
storm. 
_ Q. Then you were asked whether, as a rule, mackerel did not disappear, 

when a storm came up, for a week, and were not to be found ; had you 
found any mackerel just before the storm ?7—A. Yes; I caught some the 
day before. 

Q. Anything like a large catch ?—A. No; a very small one. 

(. Now, with regard to the difficulty of measuring distances. What 
do you think would be the value of a man’s opinion who stood on shore 
and said a vessel was three miles or three miles and a half off ?—A. He 
would not have so good a chance to be right as if he was standing on a 
vessel and looking at the shore. 

Q. It is in all cases a very uncertain sort of calculation ?—A. Yes; 
when the land is high it is more deceiving. 

Q. Have you not found yourself deceived very often in the measure- 
ment of distances ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What do you think would be the value of a man’s judgment in 
stating that he stood on shore and saw a fleet of 200, 300, 400, or 500 
i fishing within three miles of land ?—A. It would not amount to 
much. ; 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Did you understand what Mr. Trescot said to you?—A. He 
asked me what I thought the judgment of a man would be worth about 
the distance of a fleet of vessels off from the shore; it would be uncer- 
tain whether they would be within three miles or two miles. 

Q. What was the first year you came to the bay ?—A. I think 1827 
I did not go after mackerel, but codfish. 

Q. What was the first year you were in the bay for mackerel 7—A. In 
1835, 1 think. 

Q. Were the mackerel better then than in 1845 or 1855 ?—A. No. 

Q. Not so good !—A. I don’t think they were. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2469 


Q. They were better about 1860?—A. Yes; somewhere about then. 

Q. And from that down to 1865 or 1870 tA, Yes; and since that 
time not as good. 

Q. Those are the years they were better?—A. Yes. > 

By Mr. Trescot : 

Q. Suppose a fleet of 200 or 250 vessels were fishing off shore, what 
space would be covered ?—A. Sometimes when they are snugly together, 
they don’t cover a very large body of water; and you can scatter them 
over a large surface. It depends on how snugly they are together. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. The first year you went into the bay cod-fishing, had you heard of 
mackerel-fishing there?—A. No. There was hardly a vessel from the 
States in the bay then. ~ 

Q. Had you heard of mackerel-fishing there ; had it begun then ?7—A. 
No; there was not much caught at that time. 

By Mr. Foster : 

Q. What year were you first in the bay for mackerel ?—A. In 1835. 

In 1827 there was nothing doing in mackerel-fishing. 


No. 50. 


r 


GEORGE O. CLARK, of Belfast, Me., fisherman, called on behalf of 
the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 

Question. You are one of the sharesmen of the Lizzie Poore ?—Answer. 
Yes. ; 

Q. How many years before that had you been in the gulf fishing 7?— 
A. Seven or eight years. 

Q. What was the last year before this summer you were there ?—A. 
1870. 

Q. In what schooner ?—A., tes of Belfast, Captain McFarlane. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you catch?—A. About 160 or. 
165. 

Q. And where were they taken ?—A. Mostly round North Cape and 
the Bend of Prince Edward Island. 

Q. What portion, if any, was taken within three miles of the shore ? = 
A. 15 or 20 barrels. 

Q. Where were those taken ?—A. They were not taken a great way 
— of three miles; about three miles off Kildare, this side of North 

ape 

Q. Were you in the bay in 1869?7—A. No. 

Q. In 1868?7—A. Yes. 
z 2 what schooner?—A. Charles E. Moody, Frankford, Capt. Thos. 

lar 

Q. How many barrels did she take ?—A. About 200 barrels. 

Q. Where were they taken ?—A. Off Bonaventure, broad off. 

Q. Were any of them taken within three miles of the shore ?—A. No. 
_ Q. Were you in the bay in 1867 ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. In what schooner ?—A. Mary Lowe, of Gloucester, Captain Adams. 

Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. About 250, ‘I think. 

Q. Where were those taken ?—A. At Magdalen Islands, East Point, 
Margaree, and Cape North. 

Q. If you took any of them inshore, state where you took them and 


2470 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


how many !—A. We got about 50 barrels at East Point, from 3 to 8 
miles out ; about the same number at the Magdalen Islands. From Kast 
Point to Port Hood we got a few going across, and from there down to 
Cape North we got the rest of the catch, about 150 barrels. 

Q. Do you say you were at Margaree ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. How near the shore did you take mackerel there ?—A. About three 
miles off. 

Q. Three miles from the mainland or the island?—A. From the 
island. : 

Q. Were you in the bay in 1866?—A. Yes. 

Q. In what schooner ?—Atlantic, of Bedford, Captain Coombs. 

Q. How many barrels did you catch ?—A. About 60 barrels. 

Q. Where did you get them ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. How long were you in the bay 7—A. About six weeks. 

(. What was your earliest trip to the bay 7—A. In 1858. 

Q. How many times between 1858 and 1866 were you in the bay 7—A. 
Three times. 

Q. When were you next there before 1866 ?—A. In 1860. 

Q. In what schooner ?—A. Abegail, Captain Dunbar. We were fish- 
ing for both cod and mackerel. - 

Q. On the same trip ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long were you in the gulf that year?—A. About three 
months. 

Q. Do you remember what you took ?—A. 20 quintals of cod and 4 
or 5 barrels of mackerel. We were not really catching mackerel. We 
fitted out for codfish. : 

Q. What bait had you?—A. We caught mackerel for bait. 

Q. Where did you fish for cod ?—A. Away up Madeleine River. 

Q. Were you in the bay in 1859 ?—A. Yes; In President, of Belfast, 
Capt. Conway. . 

Q. Were you fishing for mackerel ?—A. For codfish and mackerel. 

Q. How much mackerel and how much codfish did you take?—A. I 
guess about 150 quintals of codfish and about 150 barrels of mackerel. 

Q. Where did you take the mackerel ?—A. Off Bonaventure. 

Q. Within what distance of the shore?—A. Justin, right off the hills. 

Q. In 1858 what schooner were you in?—A. Columbia, of Belfast, 
Capt. McFarlane. 

Q. Fishing for mackerel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What did you get?—A. I believe we got about 200 barrels. 

Q. How old were you then ?—A. 12 years. 

Q. Do you remember what was your fishing ground?—A. Off North 
Cape and the Bend of Prince Edward Island. 

Q. How near the shore at the bend of the island ?—A. I should think 
about 3 or 4 miles out. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. Did you ever fish in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. We have been into Ship- 
pegan for a harbor. 

Q. You never fished up in the bay ?—A. Not up in there. 

Q. Then you know nothing about the fishing there ?—A. No. 

(. Have you ever heard of the fleet going there to fish ?—A. I believe 
they have been there. 

Q. Have you ever fished at Seven Islands?—A. No, I don’t know 
where they are. 

. Ny Nor up St. Lawrence River ?—A. I have been away up there fish- 


, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2471 


Q. Fishing for mackerel?—A. For cod and mackerel. 

Q. How far from the shore did you catch the mackerel there ?—A. 
We caught them inshore. We caught them for bait. 

Q. How far out?—A, One mile. 

Q. When you were down at Cape Breton and Margaree, how far were 
you off from the island ?—A. From 4 to 10 miles. 

Q. You told Mr. Foster from three to ten?—A. He did not ask me 
anything about Cape Breton. He asked me the distance from Marga- 
ree Island. 

Q. Then you were four miles from Cape Benton; and three miles from 
Margaree?—A. Yes. 

Q. Could you tell the distance exactly or accurately ?—A. No, I could 
not tell exactly. 

Q. You had no reason for giving any special attention to it?—A. No. 

«. You may have been two miles or four miles out ?—A. I might have 
been two miles and I might have been five. 

Q. I suppose special attention is not given to the exact distance you 
are off shore. You don’t pretend to measure?—A. No. 

Q. When you spoke of off shore and inshore generally, it may have 
been two or four miles, you cannot tell?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have been round Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And fished in the same way there, from two to five miles out, off 
and on?’—A. Yes, from three to five miles and eight miles, according to 
how the weather was. 

Q. If the fish had been plentiful would you have gone in fawiths FE sup- 
pose we would if fish had been plentiful. 

Q. At what distance out do the boats fish—two or three miles ?—A. 
From one mile to three or four miles. 

Q. I suppose you would be often fishing in among the boats?—A. No, 
we hardly ever went in among the boats. 

@. You never fished much about Rustico?—A. No, we never fished 
round at Rustico. . 

Q. At what parts of the island did you fish?—A. Off East Point, 
Georgetown, up at the Two Chapels, off New London, Malpeque, Cas- 
cumpeque, Kildare, North Cape, and from there to West Cape. 

Q. All round the shores of the island?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you the year you got 60 barrels in the Atlantic?—A. 
Mostly over at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Had you a license that year to fish ?—A. No. 
ao You did not try anywhere else?—A. We fished a little off Cape 

orge. - 

Q. That trip appears to have been a great failure?—A. Yes. 


No. 42. ‘ 
Monpay, October 8, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


_ Examination of RoBERT H. HULBERT, crllel on behalf of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, resumed. 


By Mr Foster : 


Question. When your examination ended on Friday, I was inquiring 
of you as to the fishery on the coast of Maine in the neighborhood of 
Mount Desert. Over how large a territory ou the coast of Maine does 
the mackerel fishery extend, and how long does it last there ?—Answer. 
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 miles, and perhaps more than that. 

I could not say for certain, for I never remember distanees or courses. 


A 


2472 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Ninety miles from what ?—A. Ninety miles along the coast. 

Q. Along about where ?—A. Portland principally, and from there to 
Mount Desert. ae 

Q. How many months does it last ?—A. The principal part of that 
fishing is from July 1 to August 25. ; ; 

Q. How far out to sea does it extend ?—A. Somewhere in the neigh- 
borhood of sixty miles. 

Q. Could you give a general idea of what portion of all the mackerel 
that go into the markets of Maine and Massachusetts, and are inspected, 
are caught between Mount Desert and Block Island, including the 
Banks, offshore ?—A. Probably, seven-eighths of all the mackerel in- 
spected. 

re Do you include in that the mackerel which come from Bay St. 
Lawrence ?—A. No; cnly those that are caught on the United States 
coast. 

Q. Then, on our coast, the fishing for mackerel does not go much 
farther north than Mount Desert?—A. Nothing of any consequence. 
Probably there are some mackerel go north of that, but very few of our 
vessels go atter it. / 

@. About what season of the year, along from Mount Desert to Mas- 
sachusetts coast, is the fishing at its height ?—A. In July and August. 

Q. When do the vessels that fish on the United States coast begin to 
go south again ?—A. The last of September, the 25th September gen- 
erally ; it depends a great deal on the weather. 

Q. And how far south do they go?—A. We don’t follow those mack- 
erel that go on the coast of Maine farther than the mouth of Vineyard 
Sound; that is near Chatham. 

Q. On the north side of Cape Cod?—A. Yes. 

Q. And how late do you fish for them off in the vicinity of Chatham ? . 
—A. We fish there only a few days, because after the mackerel com- 
mence to go down from there they go very fast; unless the weather is 
very fine we cannot fish at all for them. 

_Q. What is the latest season of the year when mackerel are fished on 
the United States coast ?—A. Nothing of any account is done after 
the 15th November. 

Q. Where are the mackerel fished so late as that ?—A. Sometimes at 
Block Island, and sometimes in the vicinity of Massachusetts Bay. 

Q. Do not your fishermen go farther south than Block Island in 
autumn, to any extent ?—A. No. 

Q. What is the quality of the mackerel taken in autumn ?—A. They 
are generally fat, but they begin to decrease after the last of October. 

Q. Within what period are the best mackerel taken off Maine, Mas- 
sachusetts, and Block Island ?—A. In September, and tili 15th October, 
perhaps they are the best. 

Q. What is the quality of the mackerel taken in the spring before 
they spawn, everywhere ?—A. All No. 3’s. 

Q. Wherever they are caught ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have spoken in your examination of having seen food for 
mackerel as far out as George’s Banks. Will you describe the different 
kinds of mackerel food you have yourself observed ?—A. The largest 
quantity of food we find in mackerel is lantz. The largest we find are 
about four inches in length. 

Q. Lantz is a kind of sand-eel?—A. Something similar. Then we find 
what we call all-eyes, a very small fish about half an inch in length. It 
18 a young fish of some kind, I don’t know what. 

Q. Have you any opinion in regard to what it is?—A. We sometimes 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2473 


think they are young mackerel. We don’t know what they are because 
they are very young. 

Q. Where have you found those all-eyes ?—A. In great abundance 
at Block Island, and often twenty-five miles off the coast of that island. 

Q. In what quantities have you found them?—A. They will some- 
times cover miles of water. They will be on the surface of the water so 
that you can pick them up in your hand, and can take five or six in the 
palm of your hand. 

Q. What extent of surface have you found covered with these little 
fish ?—A. We find them from alongside of the vessel till we reach three 
or four miles off in a boat; we find them the whole distance. I don’t 
know how far they may extend beyond, but quite a distance. 

Q. Is there any other food for mackerel ?—A. There is what we call 
cayenne; it is a seed of some kind or spawn. 

Q. Is there any other food ?—A. Hay-seed or red-seed; it has various 
names among different classes of people. 

Q. What is that ?—A. I don’t know. : 

Q. It is animal?—A. It is something that has life, I suppose. 

Q. How far out to sea do you find that?—A. On the George’s Banks, 
and even to the north, west, and east of the George’s. 

Q. Is that found very extensively, or only in small quantities 7—A. At 
some seasons very extensively, and at other seasons there will not be so 
much. We gannot tell exactly how extensive it may be. 

Q. Is there any other mackerel food ?—A. Sometimes the mackerel, 
when down near the bottom, feed on different kinds of fish near the 
bottom, such as shrimp. You find shrimp in mackerel at different 
times. ‘ 

_ Q. And jelly fish?—A. I don’t know that I ever found any jelly fish 
in them. Il have seen mackerel tear them to pieces, but whether they 
eat them or not I don’t know. I have seen mackerel jump at them, but 
probably it was for some other fish that were round the jelly fish. 

Q. You carried fresh mackerel into the New York market ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That goes packed in ice, I suppose ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many vessels are engaged in the business of carrying fresh 
mackerel into the New York market?—A. About fifty sail. 

Q. And how many are engaged in the same trade for the Boston mar- 
ket 7—A. Nearly the same number, to the best of my knowledge. 

Q. Are those vessels of the same size as other vessels engaged in the 
fishing business elsewhere ?—A. Smaller vessels run with fresh mackerel 
to Boston than to New York. a 

Q. What would you estimate as the average tonnage of vessels en- 
gaged in the fresh mackerel trade for New York, and also the average 
tonnage of vessels engaged in the same trade with Boston ?—A. Prob- 
ably somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 or 55 tons for Boston, and 
perhaps 10 or 12 tons more for New York, on an average. ~ 

Q. Not quite so large as the average of the Cape Ann fleet 7—A. No. 

Q. Can you give any idea of the quantity of fresh mackerel that goes 
into the New York market every season ?—A. I should say about a fair 
average would be 40,000 mackerel to a vessel. 

Q. Do you mean for the season or trip ?—A. For the season. 

‘ Q. How many mackerel, such as go into the market, would there be 
on an average to a barrel ?—A. Of such mackerel as were taken there 
wet : ed it would take in the neighborhood of 150 on an average to a 

arrel. 

Q. How many fresh mackerel do you think go to the Boston market ?— 


~“ 


2474 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


A. I have not much idea what the quantity is. I don’t know that I 
could come near it. ! 

Q. Do those fresh mackerel vessels make a few long trips or many 
short trips ?—A. They cannot keep out very long for the fish would not 
keep. They have to run in with the fish while they are good cr they 
will lose them. 

Q. About how long are the vessels out ?—A. Sometimes a week, and 
perhaps ten days; not longer than ten days after they get fish on board. 

Q. Now, take your experience in fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence. What value would you attach to the right to fish within 
three miles of the shore in British dominions?—A. What fish do we 
take inside of three miles ? 

Q. You can take it in that way or in regard to its value.—A. I could 
not tell exactly the value because the fish vary in price a great deal. 

Q. How important do you regard it?—A. At the outside, I have never 
in my experience taken more than one-eighth of a fare inside of three 
miles. 

Q. Do you think that seining mackerel perceptibly diminishes the 
quantity of mackerel found in the sea ?7—A. I cannot tell exactly, because 
sometimes I think we kill some very young fish. But seining has been 
going on a number of years, and even three years ago mackerel were 
just as plentiful as I ever saw them, and they were quite abundant last 
year, while this year they are scarce. We cannot account for it. 

Q. Have you ever known seining to be carried on successfully in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence 7—A. No. 

Q. Do you know any reason therefor ?—A. I hardly know what the 
reason may be; perhaps it may be the tide, or it may be that the mack- 
erel do not school the same as they do with us. There are various rea- 
sons. We don’t find many mackerel school on that fishing ground. 

ae So far as it has been tried there, seining has not been successful ?— 
A. No. 

Q. Have you ever fished in the vicinity of Seal Island, near Cape 
Sable ?—A. I have fished on that fishing ground for codfish sometimes. 

Q. Have you ever fished for halibut there ?—A. No. 

Q. Within what distance of Seal Island have you ever fished for cod- 
fish, and how have you happened to be there?—A. Sometimes we find 
fish scarce on George’s Bank or other Banks where we fish in summer, 
and we run over there and try; but we hardly ever get inside of from 15 
to 25 miles of Seal Island. 

Q. What is the shaMowest water you ever knew the halibut fishery to 
be prosecuted in ?—A. I could not tell that, because I am not much ac- 
quainted with the halibut fishing, though I have been some few voyages. 

Q. You don’t expect to catch halibut in much shallower water than 
codfish 7—A. No; generally deeper. 

Q. And your codfish have not been taken within how far from land ?— 
A. From 15 to 25 miles of Seal Island, and in that vicinity. 

Q. You have made cod-fishing voyages; where to and how many, in 
general terms?—A. I could not tell you exactly how many; quite a 
number. 

Q. Where have you been?—A. To the Grand Banks, Sable Island 
Banks, and others. 

Q. Have you tried both trawling and hand-line fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What has been your bait?—A. For general use, herring. 

(. And what else ?—A. Sometimes we used clams. 

Q. Salt clams?—A. Yes; and sometimes squid and menhaden. 

Q. Menhaden slivers ?—A. Yes. 


= 
. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2475 


Q. Have you ever been in to Newfoundland to buy bait for codfish ?— 
A. I have been there. 

Q. To what port?—A. St. Mary’s Bay. 

Q. What did you buy?—A. We bought a lot of caplin; that was all . 
we could get. 

Q. Was that good bait?—A. No. 

Q. Why not ?—A. It would not keep any time in ice, and it was too 
small. 

Q. What is the bait used on the George’s Banks by codfishermen ?—A. 
For the first three trips in the winter time they take frozen herring, and 
after that they use alewives and menhaden, which they get in Vineyard 
Sound. 

Q. In regard to the mackerel fishing, what is the bait used for throw 
bait by mackerel vessels ?—A. Menhaden slivers. 

Q. How far north is the extreme point where menhaden is caught 7— 
A. I don’t hardly remember, but probably nothing north of Grand Ma- 
nan Island, and I don’t think they go that far. 

Q. Can you give us the price of fresh mackerel in New York and Bos- 
ton markets?—A. I don’t know that I can correctly. The prives vary 
a great deal. ; 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. You are now pilot on board the Speedwell and do not go mackerel 
fishing now ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you had much experience in the fisheries of the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence? How many seasons have you been there?—A. I think I 
have been there five seasons. 

Q. And those seasons cover the whole of your experience theré ?—A. 
Yes. ) 

Q. In regard to fishing off the American coast your experience has 
been more extended ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many seasons were you there ?—A. Five whole seasons, and 
parts of perhaps five other seasons. 

Q. How far from shore were your mackerel taken on the American 
coast ?—-A. All the way from 5 to 50 miles from the land and also off 
the off-shore Banks. George’s Banks are 133 miles from Cape Ann, and 
we find mackerel there and off the northeast edge of the Banks. 

Q. Last year and the year before were very good fishing years 7?—A. 
Very favorable; we could not complain. 

Q. I understand they were exceptionally good,?--A. Yes. 

Q. What was the condition of the mackerel fishery along the United 
States coast for the previous eight or ten years; had it been declin- 
ing ?—A. It does not appear to have been. 

Q. When you say “it does not appear to have been,” do you speak 
from actual experience ?—A. From what I have seen myself. 

Q. Did you examine the returns to see the quantity caught ?—A. I 
don’t know that I have properly, but as Iam amongst the vessels, I 
have a pretty good chance of knowing how the others have been doing. 
At the close of every season when the vessels stop seining, I can see 
the reports of all the vessels and the quantity of fish landed. I have 
not those in my memory, because I never thought they would be of any 
assistance to me. | 

Q. Are you able to state whether there was a decline in the mackerel 


fishery off the coast of the United States during the seven or eight 
_ years previous to 1875?—A. Not to my knowledge; I could not say 


there was. 


2476 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Could you say there was not ?—A. No. 

Q. In reply to Mr. Foster, where did you say seven-eighths of the 
inspected fish were caught?—A. I said seven-eighths of the inspected 
fish in Maine and Massachusetts were caught between Block Island and 
Mount Desert. Block Island is in the State of Rhode Island, and Mount 
Desert is in Maine. 

Q. Do you mean that to include all fish caught by American vessels ?— 
A. I mean fish caught on the coast of the United States. I am not 
speaking of the fish caught in British waters. 

Q. It does not refer to the fish caught by American vessels in British 
waters?—A. No. 

Q. You speak from your practical knowledge, having been on the 
ground and seen the fish taken ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You say that seven-eighths of the mackerel caught by American 
vessels in American waters are caught between those two points ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. And the other one-eighth is taken where?—A. It is taken to the 
southward of that, between Hatteras and Block Island. 

@. Have you examined the inspection returns?—A. We see them 
generally every season when the fishing is done. 

Q. You have not got any returns with you ?7—A. No. 

Q. When !you make your return after a fishing voyage, does that 
return embrace a statement of the places where the fish were taken ?— 
A. No. 

Q. Does it embrace the fact that the fish were taken in American or 
British waters ?—A. It does not. 

Q. Then if an American vessel took a cargo of fish into one of their 
ports, it would not appear from the official returns whether the fish had 
been caught in British or American waters ?—A. We see that a vessel 
is reported with so many barrels of fish from such a place. 

Q. That is in the newspapers ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is there any official record kept ?—A. There is a record of each 
‘vessel kept by the owner. 

Q. I understood you to say, speaking with regard to the United States 
coast, that there is a special school of mackerel in the neighborhood of 
Block Island, which is known as Block Island mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And that they remain there the whole season and do not come 
north ?—A. They do not come north; we don’t find them north. 

Q. I understood you to say that mackerel fishing on the American 
coast begins in May ahd does not end till November ?—A. It begins as 
early as 25th April. When it closes depends a great deal on the 
weather. If there isa blustery, cold autumn, the mackerel will not stay 
so moody but if there is moderate weather, they will stay till 15th No- 
vember. 
es The fish remain on the coast, more or less, during that time ?—A. 

es. 

_Q. And are taken in large and small quantities the whole of that 
time ?—A. Not in large quantities in the latter part of the season; the 
body of the fish have gone off the coast. 

Q. All the fish taken before the spawning season you class as No. 
ee Yes; all that are long enough. They are threes and small 

rees. 

Q. When you speak of American vessels fishing in the spring for 
mackerel off the United States coast, they are fishing for the inferior 
class of mackerel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You described the different places where mackerel spawn, and you 


* 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2477 


said the time of spawning varied at different places along the American 
coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How do you know that mackerel spawn on George’s Shoal ?—A. 
Because there is a certain quantity of them taken there before spawning, 
and others taken there after spawning. 

Q. How do you know they spawn there? Have you seen young 
mackerel there ?—A. I have seen all-eyes, which we suppose are young 
mackerel, on the George’s. 

Q. Describe them.—A. It is a very small fish, probably not more 
than half an inch in length, and its eyes are more conspicuous than any 
other part of the body. You notice the eyes of the fish when swimming 
in the water before you observe the body. 

Q. You call them all eyes for that reason?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is what makes you believe that mackerel spawn on Geers 
Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that there are two schools of mackerel 
that come along the United States coast and that a distinct school comes 
along the Maine coast?—A. The fish do not all come in to the coast at 
one time. . 

Q. At different times?—A. Yes. 

Q. And a little later as you come Aether north?—A. Yes. The fish 
do not all strike the coast at one point. Sometimes the mackerel will 
strike a little to the north of Hatteras, and you will fall in with another 
school of fish 50 miles north, that will come near the coast, within 50 
miles, and perhaps less. 

Q. You said you found a body of fish frequenting Nantucket shoals, 
and you found that body afterwards on George’s Banks ?—A. We find 
them sometimes at George’s afterward; sometimes they don’t get so far 
eastward as that. We usually find part of them on the George’s, at the 
southwest part. 

Q. The mackerel that are found off the coast of Maine remain there 
until they begin to return to their haunts for the winter, wherever those 
haunts may be ?—A. Yes; the mackerel on the coast of Maine and Mas- 
sachusetts. 

Q. Do you know whether fishermen ever take mackerel in the winter 
season in muddy places 7—A. I have heard of mackerel being taken out 
of the mud with a spear in the winter time. 

Q. Whereabouts ?—A. In Cape Cod Bay, Bridgehampton Bay, and in 
the vicinity of Cape Cod. 
hae Did you ever examine the eye of the mackerel in early spring ?— 

res. 

Q. Can you tell the Commission whether the eye is then in the con- 
dition in which you find it afterwards, during the mackerel season, or 
what difference is there?—A. When we first find the mackerel in early 
spring, there is always a sort of scale over probably two-thirds of the 
eye. As the mackerel work north, the scale comes off, and the last 
mackerel we find, those in the middle of November, have the scale again, 
covering a quarter of the eye. 

Q. It would then seem that in the spring the eye has a film over it, 
and as the season advances, this works off?—A. Yes. 

Q. And as the colder season comes on, the film covers the eye again ?— 
= oh appears that something grows over the eye as the weather grows 
colder. 

Q. Have you heard of mackerel being taken in winter under the 
ice ?—A. I have heard of their being taken when the ice was on the flats, 
but not when the harbor was frozen. 


2478 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. They were taken from the mud below the ice ’—A. Yes; at the 
deepest part of the island. 

Q. When thus taken, would the film be over the eye ?—A. I don’t 
know. I only saw one caught in that way, and I did not take notice of 
that point. ; 

Q. Do you know whether the mackerel winter in the mud?—A. I 
could not say, but we have reason to think they do. That is the general 
opinion of fishermen—that the mackerel winter in the mud. 

Q. Do the mackerel remain on George’s Shoal all the season, as the 
mackerel do at Block Island?—A. Some seasons they do, and other 
seasons they remain there only a short time. They have been taken 
there some years during all the season. 

Q. You were five seasons fishing in the gulf, I believe ?—Ay Yes. 

Q. At what special places did you fish while there ?—A. The principal 
part of my fishing in Gulf St. Lawrence was at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. You never fished much in other parts ?—A. Not greatly; I have 
fished in other parts of the bay. 

Q. Have you ever fished in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. Yes, one summer. 
We spent one week there one summer. 

Q. What year was it ?—A. I cannot remember the year. 

Q@. Can you remember the vessel you were in ?—A. I think it was in 
the Pocumtuc. 

Q. That would be some time’in 1865?—A. About that time. 

Q. Had you any license at that time ?—A. I cannot recollect whether 
we had or not; but I don’t remember hearing anything about a license. 

Q. Was there much of a fleet in Bay Chaleurs when you were there ?— 
A. No; there were three vessels there. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. We went up as far as Port Daniel, on the 
north side of the bay. a 

Q. Did you fish close to the shores at all?—A. We tried round in the 
bay, but we did not find anything. 

_Q. You did not go on the south side 7—A. No. 

Q. Did you fish off the Gaspé coast, and up at Bonaventure 7?—A. I 
never fished there. 

Q. Or at Seven Islands 7—A. No. 

@. You don’t know anything about those fishing-grounds ?—A. No. 

(. Have you tried along the west coast of New Brunswick, from 
ei Point to Miramichi?—A. I fished part of one summer along 
there. 

Q. Did you fish close inshore there ?—A. We did not fish close in- 
shore, for the water is too shallow to raise a body of mackerel. We 
fished from North Cape, Prince Edward Island, to Miscou Island. 

Q. Did you fish within threé rpiles of the shore on the west side of 
New Brunswick ?—A. To my certain knowledge, I did not. 

Q. Then you don’t know anything of that fishing-ground ?—A. No. 

(). Have you fished within three miles of the shore at Prince Edward 
Island ?—A. Undoubtedly I have at different times. 

Q. And you caught nothing to speak of ?—A. Yes; I anchored there 
many times under the lee of the land at different parts of the island. 

Q. You did not catch many mackerel ?—A. We never took but very 
few mackerel inside of what we supposed was three miles off shore, ac- 
cording to the soundings laid down on our chart, and the soundings we 
found with our lead. 

Q. What chart did you use ?—A. Eldridge’s, mostly. 

Q. An American chart?—A. ¥es. 

Q. You did not use Bayfield’s chart ?—A. Not much. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2479 


Q. From the chart you judged you were within three miles of the 
shore ?—A. That is the way we judged, by our soundings. 

Q. You tried the Cape Breton coast?—A. Yes. 

Q. How did you find the fishing there ?—A. I remember catching 
some mackerel one season near Margaree Island. 

Q. Any quantity to speak of ?—A. Somewhere in the neighborhood 
of 30 or 35 barrels. 

Q. Those were all?—A. They were got in one day’s fishing at the lat- 
ter part of the season. 

Q. You have already stated that you caught one-eighth of your mack- 
erel inshore ; where did you get them ?—A. Inside of three miles at the 
Magdalen Islands. 

. You never caught any mackerel at all, except 35 barrels, within 
three miles of the shore, except at the Magdalen Islands?—A. Yes; I 
have caught a few mackerel at different times, within three miles of the 
land, probably at Prince Edward Island. I have taken mackerel there 
inshore, in very small quantities, perhaps one barrel or two. 

@. Apart from the barrel or two caught at Prince Edward Island, 
you never caught any fish within three miles of the shore, but 35 bar- 
rels around Cape Breton ?—A. That is the largest catch I took, know- 
ing I was within three miles of the land: 

Q. Did you catch many within four miles of the land?—A. No. 

Q. Did you catch many within five miles ?—A. No. You cannot raise 
a sufficient body of mackerel in less than 20 fathoms of water to lay to 
and heave bait. I am speaking as I found it. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that you cannot raise a large body of 
mackerel within three or four miles of the shore?—A. I venture to say 
that I cannot do it, for there is not deep enough water. 

Q. Then is it not curious that you can find them around the Magda- 
len Islands ?—A. It is deeper water there than around any part of the 
coast. 

Q. Does not this map (a chart of the coast of North America from 
the Strait of Belle Isle to Boston, including the banks and islands of 
Newfoundland) show that the soundings around Prince Edward Island 
and Cape Breton are deeper than those off Magdalen Islands ?—A. I 
don’t know but this map shows that. 

Q. Would you say, looking at this map, that within three miles of 
Magdalen Islands you can find water 20 or 25 fathoms deep ?—A. In 
some parts we do. 

. Within three miles of the shore?—A. We do. I don’t know that 
I can find it marked 20 fathoms deep. 

(. You have shown why mackerel cannot be caught at Prince Ed- 
ward Island?—A. I don’t say they cannot be caught there. I have 
caught them there myself in small quantities. 

Q. Apart from the two or three barrels, you said mackerel were not 
to be had there, and you gave as a reason that the water was not deep 
enough ?—A. Sometimes we took them inside of three miles at the 
Magdalen Islands; sometimes not within fifteen miles of land. It is 
giving a large proportion to say that one-eighth of my catches were 
taken within three miles of land. 

Q. You did not say that it was giving a large or small proportion ?— 
A. I did not want to put it down too small. I have seen many trips 
taken when no fish were taken anywhere except at Magdalen Islands, 
and there pretty well offshore. . 

Q. You gave evidence that one-eighth of the catch was taken inshore; 
none appear to have been taken inshore except 35 barrels off Cape Bre- 


2480 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ton, and two or three barrels off Prince Edward Island ?—A. Did I say 
that two or three barrels were taken off Prince Edward Island, or two 
or three barrels each time we tried ? : 

Q. Would it surprise you to hear that three-fourths or seven-eighths 
of the fish caught by boat-fishermen are taken within three miles, and 
almost within two miles, of the shore ?—A. I would be very much so. 

Q. Your theory would fall to the ground ?—A. I should think so. 

Q: Your experience in the gulf is confined to five seasons 7?—A. That 
is all; and part of that I remember very little of. . 

Q. You don’t know what the other vessels have taken, or where their 
catches were taken ?—A. No. 

Q. You wish to confine your experience to that obtained in your ves- 
sel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You wish the reason why mackerel could not be taken inshore to 
be received that it is because the water is too shallow, and that there 
must be 20 or 25 fathoms ?—A. That is the way I caught mackerel my- 
self. 

Q. Do you mean that that is with hand-lines or seines ?—A. That is 
with hand-lines. I have never been seining. 

Q. Do you know why seines are not successful in the gulf?—A. I 
don’t know. I have heard various reasons given. 

Q. Have you ever heard that it was because the mackerel were too 
close to the shore to enable the seiners to catch them ?—A. I have heard 
that reason. 

Q. Have you heard it from fishermen ?—A. I don’t know but that I 
have. : 
Q. Have you any doubt about it?—A. I cannot say I have or that I 
have not. I may have heard so. ' 

@. That they cannot seine mackerel because they are in too shallow 
water ?—A. They have been seined there this summer. 

(. To any large extent ?—A. I don’t know to how large an extent. 

(@. Do you know whether any seiners have adapted their seines to the 
waters of the gulf ?—A. I cannot say as to that; I have not been there. 

Q. So, practically, you know very little about the fishing in the gulf ?— 
A. I admit I know very little about it, and I will do less than I do now. 

(. You find your present position more profitable than that of a mack- 
erel fisherman?—A. Probably my present position may not continue 
long. . 

By Mr. Whiteway : 

(. Have you been many seasons to the Grand Banks fishing ?—A. No. 

@. How many times ?—A. Perhaps once or twice. 

(. When were those occasions ?—A. I cannot give you the dates. 

Q. Nor the years ?—A. No. 

(). Did you fish with salt or fresh bait 7—A. I have been there and 
fished with salt bait altogether some seasons. When I sailed out of 
Provincetown I fished with salt bait altogether. 

Q. Have you ever used fresh bait on the Grand Banks ?—A. I have 
part of a voyage, part of the season. 

Q. Where did you get it?—A.- We bought it at Prospect, above 
Halifax. 

Q. What year was it that you went into St. Mary’s Bay for caplin ?— 
A. That was the year I was in the Pocumtuce; in the spring we went in 
there. We did not go in exactly for bait, but in coming out we bought 
some caplin. I cannot tell you the year. 

@. How many barrels did you buy ?—A. About 15 barrels. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2481 


Q. That is the only time you used caplin?—A. That is the only time 
I have used any. | 

Q. Are you sure the caplin you purchased at that time were perfectly 
fresh when you put them in ice?—A. I could not say. We got them 
from one or two boats which came up to us; but whether they had been 
caught 24 hours before or that morning 1 could not say. 

Q. Suppose other parties who have had experience in the use of caplin 
for bait packed in ice pronounced it to be a fish which would keep longer 
than any other, would you be disposed to contradict the statement ?— 
A. ‘No; because I have only tried it once, and I speak as I found it. 

Q. You fish with trawls and hand-lines?—A. We were fishing with 
trawls then. 

Q. Fresh bait, I believe, is far superior to salt bait in fishing with 
trawls?—A. I did not find it so that season. We had salt clams, a very 
costly bait, and we got our trip on it. 

Q. How much did you pay per barrel for that bait ?—A. I think $10 
that spring. 

Q. Do you remember what you gave for the caplin?—A. From $1 to 
$1.50 per barrel. It was not over $2. 

@. The season you were fishing, were many American vessels fishing 
near you?—A,. Yes. r 

Q. Were they using fresh or salt bait ?—A. Some with fresh and some 
with salt bait. Those using fresh bait did not fish where we did. We 
could not catch fish where they were. We could not catch as many as 
we could by ourselves. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. You spoke of the mackerel coming at different parts of the year 
to the coast and spawning 7—A. Yes, 

Q. They must be different schools of fish, I suppose ?—A. Yes. 

oo They come from the deep waters and go inshore and spawn ?—A. 
es. 

Q. The fish spawning off Mount Desert would not belong to the 
same school as those which spawn off Sandy Hook?—A. Certainly 
not. : 

Q. Do you take the mackerel on St. George’s Bank and the Banks in 
the gulf where the bottom is rocky and broken, or where it is sandy, or 
do you take them under both these circumstances ?—A. Under both. 
But Ido not know that I ever took much notice of that, because our 
seines do not go to the bottom, and we have not much idea of what the 
bottom is. - 

Q. What is the case with the places which you have described as 
those where you go ?—A. Some are rocky, and more parts are sandy. 

Q. Where is this so? Give an instance of it.—A. It is very rocky off 
Block Island. ; 

Q. And you take them there, asI understand it, rather later in the 
season than at other places ?—A. Yes. There is a place twenty-one 
miles southeast of Block Island where there is a small bank. <A great 
many cod-fishermen lay there, and it is the best place for the large mack- 
erel to play and show themselves. 

By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 

Q. Do you consider that the mackerel go actually into:the mud ?—A. 
I do not know as they do so. 

Q. Do you believe that this is the case 7—A. Yes. 

Q. But they are not of the nature of a mud fish at all ?—A. I do not 
know that they are. 


156 F 


2482 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
- 


Q. What do you think as to the theory of mackerel migrating? Do 
you believe that they go south altogether, or that they merely pass off 
shore into deep water ?—A. I do not think that they go very far south, 
but rather that they go out to the northern edge of the Gulf Stream. 

Q. Do you think that they go altogether there ?—A. Probably all do 
not go; perhaps there are other places where they go; but I think that 
they go away until they find warm water. 

Q. Is that the character of any other fish, to migrate into warm 
water 7—A. We have schools of other kinds of fish that come from the 
southward; there is the cod, which comes on the Banks. 

Q. Is their migration as well established as that of the mackerel ?— 
A. I do not know but that it is. 

Q. Have you observed where they strike ?—A. I do not know that I 
have. 

Q. What signs have you seen of codfish migrating?—A. Well, I have 
caught them in different parts, of course. 

Q. Are there signs of their migrating? Do they migrate into warm 
water 7—A. I do not think that they do; of course, we find some of 
them on the Banks, but we do not know where they go to or come from. 
I cannot tell. 

@. No more than you can with respect to the mackerel ?—A. I do not 
know but this is the case. 

@. You do not know whether the mackerel go into deep water or to 
the Gulf Stream ?—A. I do not know whether they go into the mud at 
all; that is only what I think is the case. 

@. Have you seen evidence enough in all your experience to satisfy | 
you clearly that the mackerel go into the Gulf Stream or spend their 
winter elsewhere ?—A. I do not know as I could say. 


No. 51. 


JAMES CURRIE, master mariner and fisherman, of Pictou, was called 
on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. How old are you ?—Answer. Fifty-four. 

Q. Have you ever fished for mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where ?—A. In the bays of Pictou; in what is called the North- 
umberland Strait, from Cape George to Pictou Island, and from Cape 
George to Murray Harbor, and also from Pictou Island again to what is 
called the Gulf Wharf at Arisaig, and clear to the West Cape of Prince 
Edward Island. 

Q. In vessels or in boats?—A. In boats. . 

Q. How large were they ?—A. Some of them were 20 feet keel, and 
others 22 feet and 25 feet. , 

Q. How far out from the shore did the boats go when you fished in 
them ?—A. From Pictou Harbor to the East Point of Pictou Island is a 
dis‘ance of 9 miles, and from the latter point to Arisaig Wharf is some- 
thing like 12 to 15 miles. 

(). From land to land?—A. Yes. 

Q. How far out is most of the boat fishing with which you are 
acquainted, done ?—A. All I can tell you is that I have fished close 
song the shore, and that there we could not get anything worth speak- 
ing of. 

Q. Estimate the distance out at which you fished.—A. What I call 
shore fishing is done from half a mile to 14 miles out, and no quantity 


eT ES 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2483 


of fish is to be got there, but you can go off shore 3 miles and outside 
of that, and get fish. 

Q. Were you ever a pilot for a government vessel ?—A. Yes; this 
was before econfederation—in 1854. 

Q. What were the names of the vessel and her captain?—A. Re- 

sponsible was the vessel’s name, and Philip Dodd the name of the 
captain. 

Q. What was this vessel doing while you were pilot ?—A. We were 
looking after the American fishermen. 

Q. For what purpose 7—A. To see that they did not intrude on the 
shore fisheries. We cruised on the north side of Prince Edward Island, 
around on the south side of Cape Breton, and occasionally on the north 
side of Cape Breton. 

Q. How long were you on that vessel ?—A. Five or six months, I 
should say. 

Q. Did you find the American vessels fishing within 3 miles of the 
shore ?—A. We did not find any fishing within three miles of the shore ; 
they were all outside of that limit. 

Q. Were any seizares made?—A. None were made by the Re- 
sponsible. 

Q. Did you see any made by other vessels 7—A. No; but I heard of 
this being done. 

Q. Who owned the Responsible 7—A. My father. 

«. And how did the government happen to have her under charge 7— 
A. They chartered her from my father. 

Q. Have you seen the boats go off-shore and fish in company with 
United States vessels ?—A. Yes; I saw this occur between Port Hood 
and Margaree Island, where we used to cruise considerably. I saw 
Seotch boats, as I call them, pull off and make fast to American schoon- 
ers, and get a good quantity of fish, loading their boats and going 
ashore; and that was outside of the three-mile limit. 

Q. You saw them made fast to the American schooners ?—A. Yes. 

Q. According to your observation, does fishing by the American ves- 
sels injure the boat ‘fishery ?—A. No. 

Q. Why not ?—A. Because, on the grounds where they fish, as far 
as I have seen, the Americans feed the fish by heaving over quantities 
of bait. 

Q. Are any fishing-vessels fitted out from Halifax ; and, if so, how 
many ?—A. I do not exactly know, but there are not many fitted out 


‘from Halifax. 


Q. Are there any ?—A. I do not know of any. , 
Q. Do the fishermen up here in the provinces, as far as you have ob- 
served, get rich ?—A. No; they are generally poor. 
Q. Do they lay up money ?—A. No. 
Pd whom is the money made on fish?—A. By the merchants in 
alifax. 


By Mr. Thomson : 


Q. Are you a practical fisherman yourself ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long have you been engaged in fishing ?—A. I caught my 
first fish.when I was 14 years old. 

Q. And how old are you ?—A. Fifty-four. 

Q. And have you been engaged in fishing ever since you were 14 ?— 
A. No; not all the time. I have been a pilot as well as a fisherman. 

Q. Do you call yourself a practical fisherman ?—A, I do. 

Q. Have you gone on fishing-voyages ?—A. I am a practical boat- 
fisherman. 


2484 AWARD OF THE FiSHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You have not fished in any schooner ?—A. Yes; but not as a fish- 
erman. I have made trading trips, having gone to buy fish, but not to 
fish myself. 

Q. You have not been ina vessel engaged in fishing ?—A. I have 
never been engaged in vessels as a fisherman. 

Q. Then you are not a practical fisherman except as concerns boats? 
—A. I should say that a man who understands boat-fishing could also 
fish on board of a schooner. ; 

Q. You have never fished on a schooner ?—A. Not as a fisherman. 

Q. Did you ever fish at all in the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In boats ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where ?7—A. Off St. Peter’s. 

Q. Did you go to reside there 7—A. No. 

Q. You happened to fish there 7—A. I ran over there in a boat, be- 
cause we could not then get any fish at home. 

Q. You went there from Pictou ?—A. Yes. 

Q. To which St. Peter’s did you go?—A. To St. Peter’s on the north 
side of Prince Edward Island. 

Q. Did you go over there in an open boat 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the distance across 7—A. I do not know as I could tell 
you now exactly. 

Q. What is about the distance ?—A. It is something like 125 miles, I 
guess, around down to East Point; and then itis between 40 and 50 
miles up the island to St. Peter’s. 


that. 

Q. You went there in an open boat 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How often did you try that experiment 7—A. Twice in my life- 
time. I was there this summer ina boat which I built myself, and I 
was there twelve years ago. 

Q. That would be in 1865?—A. I do not know about that; but I 

‘know that itis all of twelve years ago. We loaded with codfish. 

Q. You were not then mackerel-fishing ?—A. No; tbat was in the 
spring. 

Q. You never fished for mackerel in the Bay of St. Lawrence at all ?— 
A. Yes; I have. 

Q. When ?—A. Fifteen years ago. 

Q. What were you in?—A. A schooner. 

Q. I thought you told me you never fished in a schooner ?—A. We 
were trading, and sometimes when we could not buy any fish we turned 
to and caught them; but this was not making a summer’s work of it. 
You asked me if I was a hired fisherman, and I told you.that I was not. 

Q. I asked you if you were in the habit of fishing in schooners.—A. 
I have done so; but not as a hired fisherman. 

Q. What, then, was your business ?—A. I was hired undér the boss 
trader of that schooner. 

Q. What were you doing ?—A. Trading. 

Q. Where?—A. We were at North Cape, Cape Breton, and previously 
at Ingonish, Cape Breton, and then we went into the Bay of St. Law- 
rence and afterward to the south side of North Cape, Cape Breton. 

Q. Did you trade at Prince Edward Island ?—A. No; but we hap- 
pened to sail that way, and we heaved out the lines one evening to see 
if we could catch any mackerel. We were going to Pictou when we 
were caught by a head-wind and taken as far as Cascumpeque; the wind 
then headed off again and we came around East Point and went home. 

Q. You did not trade then 7—A. No. 


Q. That would make the distance 170 miles ?—A. I will not swear to 


\ 


t 
7, 
a 


——— ~ ae “oe oe 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2485 


Q. You did not go out to fish at all?—A. We had fishing-gear on 
board, and we went for the purpose of catching fish that day. 

Q. But was your schooner fitted out for fishing ?—A. No, but for 
trading ; she had, however, fishing-gear on board. 

Q. What do you call fishing-gear ?—A. She had somewhere about six 
nets on board, and mackerel jigs and lines enough for six men, and such 
and such bait as we could buy as we went along the shore. 

Q. Where did you get it?—A. At Little Canso, before we went round 
Scatarie. 

Q. Had you barrels in which to put your fish ?—A. Yes. 

(. Then you were on a kind of mixed trip—trading and fishing ?— 
A. Of course. When we could not buy, we caught them if we could. 

Q. How many fish did you catch during the whole trip?—A. We 

caught 150 barrels. 

Q. Where?—A. Between Ingonish, Cape Breton, and St. Peter’s, Prince 
Edward Island. We were not exactly close inshore. 

Q. What do you call close inshore ?—A. From one-half a mile to 14 
miles, and perhaps 13 or 3 miles off shore. 

Q. But were you very nearly close inshore 7—A. We were not inside 
of three miles from it anyway; none of them were taken within this 
limit. 

(). Not one of them ?—A. No. 

Q. I suppose that you would not have caught any within three miles 
of the shore if you could have done so?—A. Yes; we would, if we 
could have got any there. 

Q. Did you try in there?—A. Yes. 

Q. I suppose you knew that you had no right to fish there ?—A.. We 
were in a British schooner, and we had a right to fish anywhere where 
we could get fish. 

Q. Did you attempt to fish within three miles of the shore?—A. I 
tell you plainly that we tried in there, but we could not get the fish 
there to any amount. 

Q. What did you catch there 7—A. I remember that one day we took 
25 mackerel there. 

Q. And that is the ouly day you do remember of having caught fish 
there ?—A. No. 

Q. What other days did you do so ?—A. There are ) plenty more days 
when this was the case. 

Q. I suppose you remember that day Spaetnes so few were then 
caught?—A. Yes; it did not pay us much for that day’s work. 

@. Other days you did much better work 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do I understand you to state to the Commission that the inshore 
fisheries along Prince Edward Island are good for nothing ?—A. I do 
not think that they are good for anything, between you and me. | 

Q. During how many years have you been acquainted with them ?— 
A. I was fourteen when I caught my first fish. 

Q. Was this on the shore of Prince Edward Island ?—A. No; but off 
Sheet Harbor,down here. In 1857, my father moved to the town of 
Pictou, and the next spring we fitted out and went away around the 
shore fishing. My father is now in Nebraska. 

Q. I understand you to state that, in your opinion, the inshore fisher- 
ies on the north side of Prince Edward Island—that is, within three 
miles of the coast, are good for nothing ?—A. They are good for noth- 
ing; that is the way it lays now. 

' Q. And the way it has always lain so far as you are aware ?—A. Yes. 

Q. While you have been acquainted with them ?—A. Yes, 


2486 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q.” And that is your opinion under oath?—A. Iamonmy oath. It is 
my oath which I am looking after. 

Q. And these fisheries are really good for nothing ?7—A. They are 
really good for nothing. 

Q. How often have you fished along the shore on the north side of 
Prince Edward Island, to justify you in giving that opinion 7—A. The 
next year after I was in the Responsible 1 was fishing in the bay; this 
was in 1854. 

Q. How often did you fish there ?—A. I may say that since I have 
been in Pictou—that is since 1857, with the exception of some times 
when I have gone piloting, and more times when I went navigating to 
the West Indies, and when I was in one of your steamboats piloting to 
Boston, I have been engaged in fishing in the spring, summer, and fall, 
almost every year except four or five years. 

Q. Have you been fishing for mackerel ?—A. Yes; and for cod and 
hake. . 

Q. Within 3 miles of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes; and outside 
of 3 miles. 

Q. Iam speaking of inside of 3 miles from the shore ?—A. Inside of 
that distance I tell you plainly that mackerel cannot be caught to any 
amount. 

Q. If you have no experience as to fishing within the 3-mile limit, how 
can you say that this fishery is worth nothing 7—A. I say that from my 
experience there are no fish to be got within 3 miles of the shore, but 
they can be got outside of that. 


Q. What experience have you of the fishing within 3 miles of the ~ 


northern side of Prince Edward Island ?—A. I think I have spoken 
plainly enough. I tell you that you can catch no fish inshore; they are 
all caught outside. 

Q. How often have you fished where I have mentioned ?—A. All of 
twenty times at different times. 
- Q. How long were you there on each of these occasions ?—A. I sup- 
pose sometimes two months, and sometimes three months, and so on. 

Q. Were you in fishing vessels ?—A. I told you that I was never a 
hired fisherman on a fishing vessel. I was in fishing boats from 20 to 
22 and 25 feet keel. 

Q. Where did they belong to?—A. Two of them I built myself. 

Q. When you were living at Pictou ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you not tell me that you so fished only on two occasions ?—A. 
I ce I did so on two occasions, and into two boats which I built 
myself. 

2. te said you went there once this year and once twelve years ago? 
—A. Yes. 

Q. How does it now happen that you say you have fished there 
twenty times ?—A. I say that I have fished there all of twenty times. 

Q. In open boats ?—A. Yes; and I have been there from two to three 
months each time. 

Q. In open boats ?—A. Yes. 

Q. On each of these twenty occasions was your place of residence 
Pictou?—A. Yes. | 

a. Did you not tell me that you had gone over there twice ?—A. Yes. 
_Q. Did you ever go over there in any other boats but your own?—A, 
Yes; but not from Picton. : 

Q. Where did you go from?—A. Murray Harbor. I went there to 
earn a living. 


__)) (Se 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2487 


Q. Murray Harbor is on the south side of Prince Edward Island 7— 
A. Yes. | 

Q. What did you go there for?—A. I was seeking for employment. 

Q. And you were employed in boats there?—A. Yes. 

Q. You went in boats from there to fish for mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What were you fitted out for generally ?—A. For cod-fishing; but 
we could not get them on that shore, and so we went round to the north 
side of the island to see what we could do mackerel fishing. 

Q. And you could not catch any mackerel ?—A. Not inshore. 

Q. Will you give us the names of the owners of these boats in which 
you were ?—A. One of them was named Jackson; and I think that the 
other three are lost; they are dead now. I forget their names. Jack- 
son is now living. 

Q. And you remained fishing for three months?—A. For two or three 
months. 

Q. And during this time you caught nothing?—A. Nothing to make 
it worth while. 

Q. What did you get?—A. Something like 15 barrels of mackerel 
and 20 quintals of codfish. ; 

Q. And that was all ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that a specimen of your catches all through these twenty times? 
—A. It is—about. 

Q. Did you always go fishing there during those twenty times from 
Murray Harbor ?—A. No. 

Q. Where else did you go from?—A. We went once from Whitehead, 
down on this side of Canso. 

Q. Where did you go then?—A. To the north side of the island. I 
was with Tom Munroe, who is livipg now. 

Q. Did you fish inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you caught nothing 7—A. Nothing to speak of; but we got 
some, of course. 

Q. What induced you to go fishing there after the experience you 
had ?—A. I was hard up, and did not want to remain idle. There were 
fish to be got there if you went off the shore far enough; but we had 
not the means, and We could not get them. 

Q. But there were fish there?—A. Yes; off on the grounds; but we 
wanted capital in order to catch them. 

Q. How was the fishing where you were ?——A. I did not see any fish; 
if I had, I would have got some of them. 

Q. You say that the inshore fisheries are worth nothing ?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. Why, then, did you continue to fish there?—A. You must under- 
stand that I was not master of the boat. I was only a hired man, and 
I had to do as my master told me; and that is the reason why we did 
not catch the fish. 

“en Did you not tell them that they could get no fish inshore?—A. 
es. 

Q. And though you told them that it was of no use, they did fish in- 
Shore ?—A. Yes; certainly. 

Q. Do you not think that they had had some experience in fishing in 
that locality themselves ?—A. Perhaps this was the case. 

Q. Had they such experience or not ?7—A. I thought this was the case; 
but they did not keep to their arrangement with me;,they were too 
frightened to.go off shore, but some men are not frightened to do so in 
an open boat. 

Q. And you are one of them ?—A. Yes. 

_Q. Where did you put up at night?—A. In the cuddy, forward. 


2488 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 


Q. You did not go inshore ?—A. No. 

Q. You did not then run into a harbor ?—A. If it was dark and stormy 
looking we certainly would go in for the night. 

Q. Then on these different occasions you never made harbor at 
night ?—A. Yes; but not as a general thing. 

Q. And on these different occasions you kept inshore 7?—A. The man 
I was hired with did so. 

@. This was the case on the twenty occasions you speak of ?—A. Yes; 
save on two of these occasions, when I went fishing in boats belonging 
to myself. 

Q. And on eighteen occasions you kept inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And caught nothing there?—A. Yes; nothing worth speaking of 

Q. And these people would not go out beyond 3 miles to fish?—A. No. 

Q. How far from the land did you keep?—A. From half a mile to 
1} and 2 miles. 

Q. In other words, you actually fished eighteen times, for two or three 
months at a time, and you never caught more than 15 or 16 barrels of 
fish ?—A. No. 

Q. You so fished during eighteen different seasons for three months 
at a time ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How did you get provisions 7—A. We took them with us. 

Q. Did you take provisions for three months in an open boat ?—A. 
Yes; they were stowed away in the cuddy. 

Q. Was this an open boat?—A. Yes; with a cuddy forward. There 
were from four to five or six hands on board. A barrel of flour, with 
other things, will do this number for six month’s time. 

Q. What was the size of the boat ?—A. 20, 22, or 25 feet keel. You 
can get boats down here with 18 feet keel that will carry 500 quintals 
of codfish. 

Q. And provisions for six months ?—A. A barrel of flour, with other 
necessities, stores, will do it. 

Q. Where do you stow them ?—A. Forward. 

Q. Not in the cuddy 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And you had barrels of fish on board, and salt, and all that 7—A. 
Certainly. 

Q. How many barrels had you on board ?—A. A 300-quintal boat 
could take about 150 barrels. 

Q. How many had you on board ?—A. About 100, I suppose, includ- 
ing whole barrels and half barrels, to make stowage for the boat. 

Q. How many barrels of salt had you?—A. We buy this by the hogs- 
head, but to make ballast we put it into barrels, unheading them as we 
use it. A hogshead holds 7 bushels. — 

Q. How many hogsheads had you ?—A. About 15. 

Q. You had besides 100 barrels to put fish in aboard ?—A. Yes; and 
we could stow fish away in bulk. 

Q. And besides all these you had in an open boat provisions for six 
men for three months?—A. Yes. 

Q. And all this in a boat of 25 feet keel?—A. Yes; that is done in 
the country. 

_ Q. And you never went into a harbor at all?—A. We used to do so if 
it looked dark and stormy and the like of that. 

Q. And you never went outside of the three-mile limit while on these 
voyages —A. No; not in the boats in which I was a hired man. 

Q. You did not do so these eighteen times ?—A. No. 

Q. Never at all ?—A. No; not in the boats in which I was. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2489 


Q. And they would not go more than 14 miles out ?—A. No; but I 
saw boats outside of that. 

Q. But they would not go there ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And this was done for eighteen different seasons; the sams thing 
was done over and over again ?—A. Yes. 

Q. So that from this experience you swear positively that, in your opin- 
ion, the inshore fisheries on the north side of the Prince Edward Island 
are good for nothing ?—A. They are good for nothing; and this is also 
the case with the shore fishery of Northumberland Strait. 

Q. And if people came here and swore that plenty of fish are to be 
caught, and are caught, on the north side of Prince Edward Island, you 
would not believe one word of it?—A. No more than as to what I have 
stated; you may get there from 10 to 15 quintals of codfish, and per- 
haps from 15 to 20 barrels of mackerel; but this is not going to pay a 
crew. 

Q. You do not believe it if people say that the best fishing is in- 
shore ?—A. No; not one word of it. 

Q. In fact, the inshore fisheries are worth nothing ?—A. Yes; but 
outside the limits you will get fish. 

Q. But with that splendidly fitted out boat you never thought of 
going out there to try 7—A. No. 

Q. How far along the shores of Prince Edward Island did you fish on 
these occasions ?—A. As far as Cascumpeque, I think. 

Bi Did you fish off Rustico ?—A. I cannot say that we hove a line off 
there. 

Q. Did you sail up as far as that ?—A. Yes; we went as far as Cas- 
cumpeque. 

Q. Why did you not try there?—A. A fair wind was blowing, and 
we did not think it worth while. 

Q. Is not Rustico considered the best fishing-ground around the 
island ?7—A. No. 

5 ne Where is the best fishing-ground around the island?—A. Off New 
ondon. 

Q. That is the next harbor to Rustico?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you try there 7?—A. No. 

Q. Why not?—A. Well, when I was there I was a hired man; I was 
not master of the boat, and I could not tell my master to go to work 
and fish there. 

Q. Did he fish at Rustico ?—A. We fished inshore, but we got nothing; 


* what I call getting nothing is when a man makes a voyage, and when he 


comes back: cannot pay his debts; that is nothing, and worse than 
nothing. . : 

Q. You say you were in the schooner Responsible in 1853 ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And you took no American vessels fishing in the bay within the 
three-mile limit ?—A. No; one morning we found one inside at Mag- 
dalen Island, but when we came to examine, she was getting wood and 
water. 

. Q. You never saw any other American vessel inside of the limit ?—A. 

0. 

Q. Did you not see others, which got out of the way, and beyond the 
three-mile limit before you could take them ?—A. No; we sailed along 
one foggy morning, and tried to catch them, but we could not. 

Q. You wished to see if any were inside ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Why, then, did you try to catch them ?—A. It was on account of 
the noise made about their imposing on the provinces; and the thing 
was to get them if we could. 


2490 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You knew that there were none within the three-mile limit ?—A. 
We sailed along the shore in a fog and tried to catch them. We sailed 
from cape to cape, in the vicinity of the three-mile line, but none of the 
American vessels attempted to come inside. 

Q. Did you not say you tried to catch them inside ?—A. No; we 
sailed from cape to cape, in the fog, but never found one of them inside. 

Q. You never saw one of them?—A. Not inside; but there were 
plenty outside in the fog ; and I saw the Scotch boats make fast to them 
and catch mackerel. 

Q. Was this on foggy days ?—A. Yes; and other days, too. 

Q. There were other government vessels in there at that time ?—-A. 
Yes. 

Q. And they happened -to seize vessels ?—A. I think they had to 
give some of them up afterward. Some seizures were made; but I do 
not know whether they were legal or not. We did not see a chance to 
make any legally. 

Q. How many vessels were seized that year ?—A. I do not remember 
just now. 

Q. Of how many seizures did you hear ?—A. I could not tell you just 
now, it is so long ago, and I‘ have not bothered my memory about it 
since. I think that Leybold took one or two, as near as I can recollect, 
and the brig Halifax was out at the same time. ‘© Sir Colin Campbell, on 
a man-of-war brig, had something to do with some of them, and he 
made more mischief with Nova Scotia fishermen for teiling yarns about 
these matters than with the Americans, and he did not let the former 
out of Port Hood for a month. 

4. You seem to have a prejudice in this regard ?—A. No; I have 
none. 

Q. I asked you what vessels were seized ?—A. I cannot give you 
either the names or the number of them. 

Q. What did you hear about them ?—A. I do not remember just now. 

Q. How are you now employed ?—A. I have no employment at pres- 
eut. 

«. Where do you reside ?—A. At Pictou. 

Q. If Lunderstand you aright, when the Americans came in to fish 
within three miles of the shore the boat-fishermen made fast to the 
American fishermen ?—A. Yes; but this was not within but outside of 
the three-mife limit, and many of the boats thus got good catches. 

Q. Do the American vessels come within the three-mile limit 7—A. 
Yes; to approach the harbors. 

Q. But do they do so to fish?—A. I cannot answer that more than 
to say that I have never seen them catch any fish inside of the three- 
mile limit, though I have heard people say that they come to fish within 
three miles of the shore. 

Q. Did you ever see them do so?—A. No. I mean by seeing them 
fishing seeing them haul the fish up. 

Q. Did you ever so see them in the act of fishing ?—A. I never saw 
them more than sailing along the bays, and so on. 

Q. I understand you to say that you have been for forty years en- 
gaged in fishing, and that during this time you never saw an American 
vessel fishing within three miles of the coast?—A. No. 

Q. You never did ?—A. I never did. 

Q. Either on the coast of Nova Scotia, of Prince Edward Island, or 
of Cape Breton 1—A. No. 

@. You have seen them fishing very near the three-mile limit, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2491 


but never inside of it?—A. I have seen them inside of it, but 1 never 
saw them fishing inside of it. 

Q. They were “then merely sailing 7?—A. Yes. 

(). Then all these British boat-fishermen who made fast to the Amer- 


- ican vessels went outside of the three-mile limit to take advantage of 


the American bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the Americans never came within the three- limit at 
all?—A. Not that I have seen. 

Q. Do you think it possible for them to have come inside of it without 
your having seen them?—A. Yes; I only stick to what I have seen 
myself. 

Q. Do you not think it odd that this should be the case during these 
forty years?—A. I have heard people say that they came inside the 
neue to fish, but I have never seen them do so; I do not kuow as I ever 
di 

Q. Do you believe that the American fishermen have ever fished 
within the tbree-mile limit on the coast of Nova Scotia, of Prince Edward 
Island, or of Cape Breton?—A. Well, as to the believing part, I have 
heard men who tell the truth say that they have done so; but at the 
same time [ have never seenit. ~ 

Q. Do you believe the persons who said so or not ?7—A. I have heard 
people say so. 

Q. Do you believe item ?—A, I believed one or two men occasionally ; 
but I do not say whether this is the case or not. I did not see it. 

Q. As far as your experience goes, you believe that the Americans 
never have fished within three miles of the land during the last forty 
years ?—A. I do not know about that; that is getting it rather tight on 
aman. I might have an opinion that ‘they did do it, and would not like 
to say that they did not do it; but I have not seen them do it. 

Q. What is your opinion in this regard ?—-A. My opinion is, that I do 
not think that the intruding of the Americans on our shore is worth 
talking about. I believe this much, that if the people of Nova Scotia 
would give the American fishermen a little more freedom, the boat fish- 
ermen would have a better chance. 

Q. You are strongly in favor of the Americans coming inside of the 
3-mile limit to fish?—A. Yes; because. then I would not have to row SO 
far off on a calm morning. 

Q.. Why ?—A. When there is no wind, we have to pull the boat off. 

Q. What has that to do with this question?—A. We want to get 
alongside of the vessels, where the bait is thrown, and get some of the 


‘fish that the vessels raise. 


Q. You mean that you cannot get any fish within three miles of the. 
shore at Pictou?—A, No. 

Q. And you cannot get anything there unless the American schooners 
come there and throw bait out ?—A. Yes—nothing worth speaking of. 

. Q. Do the American schooners come off Pictou and throw out bait, as 
arule?—A. I have seen them between East Point, Pictou Island, and 
Arisaig Wharf, or Gulf Wharf. 

Q. And wherever they throw out bait, you go to fish ?7—A. I have 
seen them come quite close to the Three-Mile light, at Pictou Island, 
and raise mackerel half way between that point and the Gulf Wharf. 

Q. And then you got some fish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then I understand that you wish the Commissien’ to-understand 
that unless the Americans come there and throw out bait, even the in- 


shore fishery is good for nothing ?—A. Yes; and you must not think 


2492 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


that I have any prejudice about it, for this is not the case; I have 
none. 

Q. In point of fact, you say that unless the American fishermen are 
allowed to fish off our coasts, our own fishermen cannot catch any- 
thing 7?—A. No. 

By Mr. Foster: 

Q. Does anybody get any considerable quantity of mackerel without 
throwing out bait ?—A. No; it takes a quantity of it to raise the mack- 
erel. 

Q. Do the small-sized boats usually have a considerable quantity of 
bait to throw over ?—A. No. 

Q. Will you tell me how many men there were on board of the vessel 
or large boat on which you were ?—A. There were six of us. 

Q. Will you describe what kind of boat it was, and state its length 
and tonnage ?—A. An open boat has no tonnage. The boat was of 22 
feet keel, 11 feet 6 inches beam, and 5 feet 6 inches in depth of hold ; 
she had something like 6 or 7 feet laid off for a forecastle, called the 
cuddy; the two sides of the boat were furnished with bunks for the 
men to sleep in; and then there was what was called standing room for 
the captain; and between this and the mainmast was another place 
where we stowed away nets, fishing-lines, and fishing-gear of all kinds— 
a barrel of flour and a barrel of beef and a barrel of pork, if we wanted it. 

Q. Do you know the boat’s tonnage ?—A. I could not tell you; none 
of the boats are measured, because they are open. By keeping them 
open, we get clear of custom-house taxes, while if we decked them fore 
and aft, we would have to piy taxes at every port which we entered. 

Q. Are they like the boats called in Newfoundland western boats, 
which stay out at sea?—A. Yes; pretty much. 

Q. Which stay out for three and four weeks, and scarcely ever go 
beyond three miles from the shore ?—A. They are not built on the same 
principle ; we Nova Scotians call the western boats of Newfoundland 
jacks. 

Q. How do these boats of yours compare in size with the Newfound- 
land jacks ?—A. Ours are not quite so large. 

Q. How much smaller are they ?—A. If the jacks are of 25 tons bur- 
den, our boats are something like 15 tons. 

Q. I notice that Mr. Killigrew in his testimony speaks of western boats 
manned by six men for six months, and states that their tonnage varies 
from 22 to 28 tons, and that they follow the fish to different parts of the 
coast. Sir Alexander Galt asked him if they staid out at sea, and he 
replied : 

Yes; aap pegs for three or four weeks. They are something like our Bankers, but 
they only fish about a couple of miles from the shore. They scarcely ever go farther 
than that from the coast. : 

Q. You know what kind of boat this is?—A. Yes. 
= Q. And you say that if this is of 25 tons, yours are of 15 tons ?—A. 

es. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. What is the length of the keel ?—A. Twenty-two feet. 

Q. What is the beam 7?—A. Eleven feet six inches. 

@. Do you say that a boat of 22 feet keel has 11 feet beam?—A. 
moe feet six inches we generally call it; the hold is some 5 feet 6 
inches. 

Q. And six feet is taken in the Low for the cuddy ?—A. Six or seven 
feet, I should say. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2493 


Q. It has two masts?—A. Yes. 
Q. And is schooner-rigged 7—A. Yes. 


No. 52. 


WILLIAM PERRY, fisherman and seaman, of Sheet Harbor, Nova 
Scotia, was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, 
sworn, and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. How far is Sheet Harbor east of Halifax ?—Answer. About 
45 miles. 

Q. During how many years have you lived there?—A. About twenty- 
five or thirty years. 

Q. Do you recollect the year when you first went fishing ?—A. No; I 
first went fishing with my father in the bay. 

Q. For mackerel or cod ?—A. For cod. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. I used to go boat-fishing with him at 
home, and then my brothers and myself got a vessel and went on what 
we call the Banks, 15 or 20 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia, in deep 
water. 

Q. You did not then go into the bay ?—A. No; that would be early 
in the season. 

Q. Are these Banks 15, or 20, or 30 miles out from the shore?—A. 
Yes; in from 60 to 75 fathoms of water. 

Q. And there you caught codfish ?—A. Yes. 

(J. Did you go into the bay afterward ?—A. Yes; in August,and the 
latter part of July ; and I have been here September. 

Q. You were fishing on the Banks off Nova Scotiain May and June?— 
A. Yes. 
eee And afterward you went up the Gulf of Saint Lawrence ?—A. 

es. 

Q. Where did you go then ?—A. Up about Prince Edward Island, and 
I have been up as far as Anticosti Island, over to Labrador, and around 
the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Were you cod-fishing still?—-A. Yes; we fished out in the bay off 
the island. 

Q. What was the tonnage of your vessel?—A. We had two vessels ; 
one was very small and the other was of 25 or 30 tons or along there. 

Q. What was the tonnage of the small vessel 7—A. About 15. 

Q. When you used to go into the bay to fish at the different places 
you have mentioned, how far off shore did you catch your fish ?—A. 
From 8 to 12 and 15 miles. 

Q. Have you tried the inshore fisheries?—A. Yes. We never do try 
for cod, however, inside of 8 or 10 or 12 miles from the shore; we con- 
sider it useless to do so in vessel fishing; of course the boats fish 
closer in. 

Q. You have not been engaged in boat fishing in the bay 7—A. No. 

Q. Have you seen American vessels fishing in the bay?—A. Yes; 
very often. 

Q. At about what distance off shore have you so seen them ?—A. 
At all distances; some were 8 or 10 miles off, and others 3, 4, 5, and 6 
miles off. I have seen them fishing very often on the ridge between 
Cape George and Prince Edward Island. 

Q. There are shoaler and well-known places of fishing-grounds along 

there ?—A. Yes. 


2494 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. At what distance would this lie from the main land ?—A. About 
8 or 10 miles. 

Q. And there are good fishing-grounds along these shoal spots ?—A. 
Yes. I have never had any experience in fishing on them, but I have 
remarked the vessels fishing there very often. 

Q. In your experience, have you seen American vessels actually en- 
gaged in fishing within what you are reasonably certain was 3 miles from 
the coast, and, if so, to what extent has this been the case ?—A. I have, 
I believe, seen them fishing in close to, if not closer than, 3 miles from 
the shore sometimes, but not very often. I have seen them fishing far-. 
ther out oftener than close in, in my opinion; but I could not judge ex- 
actly as to the distance by looking at them. 

@. You spoke of their fishing from 5 to 8 miles off shore 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. And sometimes you have seen them at what seemed to be nearer 
than 3 miles from the coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. But mainly you have seen them fishing outside of the 3-mile 
limit ?—A. Yes. 

@. Where are the mackerel found in schools—inside or outside of the 
3-mile limit ?—A. I have often remarked, when sailing up the bay, large 
schools away off shore, and again I have seen them school very close to. 
the shore. 

Q. Are the schools inshore generally broken up ?—A. Yes; they gen- 
erally do break up and scatter round the shore. 

Q. When did you give the fishing business up ?—A. About five years. 
ago I found that it did not pay, and so I bought a little larger vessel 
and went into the coasting business. 

Q. Did you devote yourself industriously to the fishing business ?— 
A. Yes; as far as my means allowed me to do so I did. 

Q. I suppose that you had not enough capital for large vessels and 
great outfits ?—A. No. 

Q. Why do your people not do as the Americans do, and build large, 
fine vessels, and go off and fish outside, and catch good large catches 
and get large fish ?—A. I cannot tell you, unless they are afraid of the 
money. 

Q. Or they have not got it?—A. Yes. 

Q. In your case, I suppose that you did not have it ?—A. No. 

Q. In all this time, from 1863 to 1872, that you were fishing there, 
were you part owner of all the vessels in which you were ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you sole owner ?—A. No; there were three of us—brothers. 

Q. What are your brothers’ names ?—A. John and Patrick. 

Q. Where do they live ?—A. At Sheet Harbor. 

Q. And you three owned the vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you all go fishing ?—A. Yes, and together. 

Q. Under the Dominion flag ?—A. Yes. 

. Q. You had a right to go inside and fish as much as you liked ?—A. 
es. 

Q. While you were cod-fishing did yon occasionally take a catch of 
mackerel ?—A. We.used to take them for bait. 

Q. Where ?—A. Sometimes where we were fishing, and sometimes 
closer in shore. 

Q. You caught them where you were fishing for cod ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you catch the greater or better part of these fish there or close 
in?—A. We never could make a great catch of mackerel. We did not 
have the means to do so. We were not fitted up with bait mills; and 
our catch of mackerel was very small, sometimes it consisted of a barrel, 
a half a barrel, or somewhere along there. ; 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2495 


Q. What have you been doing since 1872 ?—A. Coasting and trading. 

Q. You have not been fishing since then ?—A. No, save last year 
when I fished with seines for herring. 

Q. Where ?—A. At the Magdalen and Anticosti Islands. 

Q. Was your fishing a success or a failure ?—A. The fish were plenti- 
ful where we were. : 

Q. From what you learned from other vessels, what was the result of 
the mackerel fishing last year ?—A. These fish were then very scarce as 
I could understand. 

Q. You know Halifax pretty well?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are there any fishing vessels fitted out in Halifax ?—A. I could 
not say, but I do not think that many are fitted out here. There may 
be some for all I know. 

Q. Do you know of one ?—A. No, not down our way. 

Q. But in the port of Halifax ?—A. I could not say that for certain I 
know of one so fitted out. 


By Mr. Doutre: 

Q. Who requested you to come here as a witness 7—A. Mr. Mackasey 
introduced me to these gentlemen, and they asked me a few questions 
concerning the matter and I gave them my opinion as far as my little 
experience goes. 

Q. What were you asked ?—A. I was asked concerning the fisheries 
in and off shore. 

Q. You were asked your opinion about them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you asked what you yourself had seen ?—A. Yes; and what 
experience I had had in fishing. 

Q. How often have you fished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I 
have fished there some three or four summers, three to the best of my 
knowledge, that is for part of the season. 

Q. This includes the years when you were fishing with your brothers ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Were you exclusively fishing for cod?—A. Yes, we went for the 
purpose of catching cod. 

Q. Where have you been fishing ?—A. In the bay, to Labrador, over 
about Anticosti, and down around Sydney and Cape North, and all 
around this shore. 

Q. You were always looking for cod ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. How far did you fish from Anticosti?—A. About 9 miles—be- 

, tween it and Labrador on the banks there. We generally made a har- 
_ bor at Mingan, on the Labrador coast, and got our bait there. 

Q. What are you doing now?—A. Nothing. I sold my vessel this. 
summer, and I am building a vessel, which is not yet finished. 

Q. Where were you when the conversation took place which led to 
your coming here as a witness ?—A. I came up to Halifax on business, 
and being well acquainted with Mr. Mackasey my meeting him led to. 
my coming here. 

Q. You say you only fished for mackerel for bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you look for that bait ?—A. We often tried for it when 
laying at anckor on the ground where we fished for cod, and we would 
catch some mackerel there sometimes; at other times we would go in- 
shore and we would find some there. 

Q. How far off shore?—A. From 2 to 3 or 4 or 5 miles. 

Q. What do you call inshore ?—A. Coming close to the Jand. 

Q; What distance from it?—A. I could not exactly say, but it would 
be 3 or 4 or 5 miles from it sometimes. 


» 


——- ' 


2496 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You call 5 miles inshore ?—A. Yes—from where we would be fish- 
ing, and we would go in, may be half the distance between us and the 
shore, and try. 

Q. Have you ever fished on American vessels ?—A. No. 

Q. You say you have seen American vessels fishing ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. How near the shore ?—A. I should say within the 3-mile limit 
sometimes, and sometimes farther off—8 or 9 miles off. 

Q. Where did you see the larger number of them fishing 7—A. I have 
seen a very large fleet fishing on the ridges between Cape George, in the 
fall of the year when I would be going to the islands. 

Q. How far from the coast ?—A. 8 or 9 miles as near as I can judge, 
and I have seen them fishing closer to and along the shore. 

Q. Did you ever see a school of mackerel ?—A. Yes; and many a 
one. 

Q. Where ?—A. In all parts of the bay. 

«. Near the shore or away from the shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What are your brothers doing now ?—A. One of them is fishing. 

Q. On his own account?—A. Yes 

Q. Which one is this?—A. John. 

Q. Do you know whether he is fishing for cod or mackerel ?—A. He 
is cod-fishing. 

Q. Is that his usual occupation?—A. Yes; he also goes herring 
fishing. 

Q. With nets 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you take the barrel or half a barrel of mackerel which 
you mention as having taken for bait?—A. Wherever we could find 
them. Sometimes it was where we were fishing, and sometimes else- 
where. 

Q. Where are herring generally taken ?—A. Great quantities of them 
are taken at the Magdalen Islands and at Anticosti, in the spring. 

Q. How far from the shore?—A. Along the shore, in the harbors. 

Q. A few acres froin the shore?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been paid to come here?—A. No. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Did you come from home for the purpose of appearing here and 
giving evidence 7?—A. No. 

Q. Had you any idea when you left home of coming here as a wit- 
ness ?—A. No, not in the least. 

Q. Did you then know, by the way, that the Commission was in ses- 
sion?—A. No, I did not know the first thing about it until Mr. Mackasey 
asked me my opinion on the matter; and that was before he spoke of 
the Commission. 

Q. He asked you your opinion ?—A. Yes; and what I thought about 
it from my experience. 

Q. Mr. Mackasey lives here?—A. Yes. 

Q. And what did you tell him ?—A. I told him what I thought of the 
matter, as far as my experience went. 

Q. And then you came here ?—A. Yes. 

_Q. Has anything been said to you by any one requesting you to tes- 
tify to certain things, whether you believe them to be true or not ?—A. 
No, not in the least. 

Q. Nothing of the sort has occurred?—A. No. 

Q. And if any such thing has been said, you would have left the man 


that said it at once ’?—A. Yes; it would have been useless to have said 
anything of the sort to me. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, | _ 2497 


No. 53. 


THOMAS WARREN, of Deer Isle, Me., called on behalf of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Question. Be so kind as to state your age.—Answer. Fifty-eight. 

Q. When did you first; go fishing no matter as to the exact date 7?— 
A. About 1853. ; 

Q. In the guif?—A. Yes. 

Q. For what did you go; for mackerel, or cod, or both?—A. Mackerel. 

q. The mackerel was rather a new thing then in the gulf?—A. Com- 
paratively ; yes. 

Q. How-long were you engaged in fishing 7A. That season ? 

Q. No; I didn’t mean that season,.but how mauy seasons did you 
go ?—A. I went five years in succession. 

Q. Into the gulf?—A. Yes. 

Q. Your last trip was in ’37 or ’38 as a fisherman ?—A. 737. 

Q. Where did you catch fish then? I don’t mean the place, but 
whether inshore or off shore ?—A. Do you refer to the first year ? 

Q. To the first five years. You spoke of having been there from ’33 
to 37 ?—A. I was there five years. 

Q. Without going into details, did you catch the fish you caught 
inshore or off shore, and in what proportion 7?—A. It is along time ago. 
lonly speak from memory. In 1833 I was in a schooner named the 
Eagle. 

Q. That is so long ago that we don’t care much about the names, 
but only whether you can tell from memory whether those five years 
you caught off shore or inshore ?—A. In 1833 I was there for mackerel. 

Q. Can you tell how it was these five years, or, if you prefer, take 
each year ?—A. Well, three of the five years I was there for codfish. 

Q. Those were caught in deep water ?—A. Always. 

’ Q. Two years you were for mackerel 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. These two years, where did you catch ?—A. In 1833 we got them 
all off shore. In 1837, the last year I was there, we got 23 barrels out 
of our trip very near St. Peter’s, within three miles of the shore. 

Q. You have no doubt they were within three miles of the shore?—A. 
I am clearly of the opinion that they were within three miles. 

Q. What was your whole trip?—A. I don’t recollect, perhaps 200 
‘barrels. The vessel was small. - 

' Q. Of those about 23 barrels were taken within three miles. After 
1837 what did you do?—A. I never went a fishing voyage after 37. I 
retired from fishing and went into the fitting business. 

Q. That is, fitting fishermen 7—A, Yes. 

@. How long were you engaged in that business ?—A. About twenty- 
eight years, if I recollect aright. 

Q. You continued in that business until you were appointed inspector 
or afterwards ?—A. My being appointed inspector did not interrupt my 
fishing business. 

Q. When did you give up your business as an outfitter ?—A. In 1874. 

@. Then from the time you gave up fishing, 1837 to 1874, you were 
engaged as outfitter of vessels?—A. Very slightly for the first four or 
five years. | 
_ Q. After that more largely. Am I right ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many years were you inspector in the State of Maine ?—A. I 
was appointed in 1862 and held office until ’69. 

, 157 F 


2498 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Seven or eight years ?—A. Seven years. 

(. Did your duties as inspector of fish generally cafry you over the 
fishing ports of the State, and to what extent ?—A. Yes; I was in every 
fishing town once a year, and when complaints came, I was as often as 
they came. 

Q. What is the largest number of vessels you fitted for yourself any 
one year ?—A. In 1862, if I recollect aright, I fitted out twenty-two sail 
of mackerel for the Bay Chaleurs, or St. Lawrence rather. (We call 
it the Bay Chaleur.) 

Q. How many mackerel-men were fitted out from your place, Deer Isle, 
in former years—say from ’60 to ’62?—A. In 1862 we had the largest 
number in the bay. 

Q. How many had you then ?—A. 45 to 48. 

Q. How many are there now?—A. Well, I don’t know that I can an- 
swer that question. From our town we bave had about five in the bay. 

Q. Is the number of vessels in other fisheries about the same ?—A. 
No; it has depreciated. There is not a quarter part of them. 

Q. When you had forty-five vessels, or from that to forty-eight, in 
1862, what proportion of them went into the bay?—A. Nearly all. 

Q. This year you have five in the bay ?—A. Yes. 

q. The year before, or the year before that, how was it?—A. Last 
year, for instance. 

Q. How many were in the bay?—A. As near as I can recollect, not 
one. 

Q. Five tried this year? With what success, as they have been heard 
from ?—A. Well, they have all lost money. 

Q. Are you well acquainted with Castine ?—A. I am. 

Q. Is that far from you ?—A. It is about fifteen miles to the north. 

Q. Has Castine engaged much in mackerel or cod 7—A. It is largely 
engaged in cod, but of late years they have not done much in any kind 
of fish. 

_ Q. How many fishermen do you suppose are fitted from Castine 
now ?—A. Nota mackereler. 

Q. Take Camden; how many did they use to have and how many 
have they now ?—A. Camden has always been a small fishing-place. 
About eight vessels, if I recollect. 

Q. Are there any now?—A. Yes, there are, but I guess there are only 
three now. 

Q. Are they in the bay ?—A. No, none in the bay. 

Q. Take North Haven?—A. Well, I guess they have had about ten 
there. 

. Any there now ?—A. None. 

(). Eastport; how many did they use to have?—A. When I first went 
there in 1862 they had eight mackerelers. 

(). Are there any now in the bay ?—A. None—nowhere. 

(). Now those various places in which the number of vessels that 
have gone in the bay have diminished to nothing, what are their ves- 
sels doing now, where they still own them ?—A. Fishing on the Ameri- 
ean shore. They are divided between seining on the shore and cod- 

shing. 

Q. That leads me to ask you as to the condition of the mackerel-catch- 
ing on the shores of Maine. How is it, and how how has it been for the 
last eight or ten years ?—A. I don’t know that I understand. 

Q. The catch of mackerel on the shores of Maine; has it increased or 
diminished ?—A. It has decreased this year. 

Q. I don’t mean this year particularly, but take the general run of 


< —- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2499 


ten years past. How is the mackerel business of the coast compared 
with what it used to be?—A. My impression is there was as many mack- 
erel put up on the coast of Maine last year, 1876, perhaps as there ever 
was. I only speak from recollection. I know they were very plenty. 

Q. How is it as to summer-fishing grounds? Where are the summer- 
fishing grounds ?—A. For mackerel? I should think three-fourths of 
all the mackerel there is taken in the United States is taken on the 
coast of Maine. 

Q. Now include in that the mackerel which are taken by your vessels 
in the bay.—A. What do you say ?. 

Q. Including the mackerel taken by your vessels in the bay, what 
proportion of all the mackerel taken, whether in the bay or on the coast, 
is taken on the American coast ?—A. What part of them ? 

. Yes; what proportion of the whole ?—A. I don’t know. 

«. Have you any means of forming a judgment?—A. No; but I think 
the amount taken in the gulf is very small indeed compared with the 
mackerel packed in the States. 

@. You should know. You have had a long experience as inspector 
and otherwise—A. Do you speak of that period for which I was in- 
spector ? : 

«. I mean to include the whole period while you were inspector or an 
observer of the matter as a merchant.—A. I should think from ’62 to 
69—during that period of time I should think there was more than 50 
per cent. of all the mackerel taken was taken in the Gulf of Saint Law- 
rence. I should think so. 

Q. Since that time how has it been ?—A. It is all run down to a point 
almost. Everything has been taken this way. ; 

Q. You mean in Maine ?—A. Maine and Massachusetts. 

Q. Then what do you say of the bay-fishing now, its present condi- 
tion? I don’t mean just to-day, but historically, taking the last ten 
years, five years, three years, two years, and soon. What condition is 
it in?—A. Well, I should say it was worthless. You mean the St. Law- 
rence, do you? Well, [ should say it was worthless. 

Q. And practically the people have so treated it ?—A. They have. 

Q. They have either gone out of the fishing or gone to other places ?— 
A. They have gone seining on our shores. 

Q. When you seine on the American shores, how far do you go? 
What is the limit of your seining ?—A. Well, our folks rarely go outside 
of the Georges. In fact, they don’t go beyond that at all. Perhaps 
twenty miles from tbe shore would be the most common ground. All 


_the way from Portland down to-Mount Desert Rock. 


Q. Then you would say between Georges and Mount Desert Rock was 
about the limit of your seining?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that business an increasing business ?—A. It has depreciated a 
good deal this year. 

Q. But within the last ten years it has been increasing ?—A. Yes, I 
guess it has been. I guess these last ten years it has been. ~* 
¥ a, Now from 1854 to 1866 you recollect was the Reciprocity Treaty ?— 

. Yes. 

.Q. During that time you had free scope fishing the gulf. You 
fished without respect to the three-mile line. Now, during that time 
when you had free access to the coast, was there any difference in the 
general result of the fisheries? Wasit any more favorable to the people 
of the United States then ?—A. Well, the fishing was very good in the 
St. Lawrence until about the year 1868. 

Q. Well, was it any more favorable? Was there any difference that 


2500 AWARD JF ‘tHE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


you observed between the fishing at the time you had liberty to fish 
without respect to the three-mile limit and the time when there was an 
obstruction ?—A. Yes, sir. Since I was quite young and went there 
myself in 1837 I have always thought it an advantage to us, the fishing 
within three miles. 

Q. How did that compare in your opinion with the advantage of hav- 
ing duties laid upon British fish coming into your markets 7—A. I 
should say, taking the duties into consideration, reciprocity was always 
against us. : ; 

Q. Now you know the opinion of the fishing people in Maine. It has 
been your duty to examine and go to every town once a year. What 
was the general opinion you found among the fishermen and fish-deal- 
ers as to the benefit they got from the Reciprocity Treaty as fishermen, 
balancing the privilege of fishing inshore against the removal of the 
duties 7—A. Well, sir, [have spenta good deal of time, especially when 
I was inspector for the State, in trying to get at public opinion in those 
fishing towns. I have consulted a great many captains and owners of 
vessels. From 1860 to °63, 64, 65, and ’66 there was not a great deal 
said about it, because the mackerel were plenty in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence; but so far as I know for several years before the treaty was re- 
pealed they were very glad to see the time coming that we should be 
placed back where we were under the Treaty of 1818. The feeling was 
strongly against reciprocity. 

Q. That is with reference to the fishery clauses of the treaty 7—A. Yes; 
in reference to fish. I didn’t refer to anything else. 

Q. Do you say that from your observations and the experience you 
have had that there was a strong opinion among the people of Maine 
engaged in the fisheries ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They preferred to go back to the arrangement by which they were 
excluded from the inshore grounds and had power to impose duties on 
British fish ?—A. Yes. 

__ Q. Well, from your whole experience down to within the last tew 
years, is there much value in your judgment in the inshore fisheries, 
that is, within three miles?—A. I think there is a value. 

-. Q. Lasked if there was much ?—A. No; I don’t think it is great; but 
I think there is a value in the inshore fisheries. 

- Q. It is more for the boats than for vessels, is it not? How is that?— 
A. I don’t know anything about boats. We only go there in vessels 
from 50 to 100 tons. There is a value and a fear. We were very glad 
ou way when we had the privilege of buying licenses of the English 

olks. 

Q. You are probably looking to a different point from that to which 
I directed you, but you may go on with reference to the apprehensions 
you used to have whenit was not permitted to youtogowithin. What were 
they?—A. Well, there were a great many captains that had no interest 
in the vessels, and they would seem to take risks that they ought not 
of fishing inshore. Somehow they seemed to have an impression that 
it was no harm to catch fish inshore if they were not caught. 

Q. Now, what other reasons influenced you besides the fear that the 
captains would actually go inshore ?—A. Well, it was a great point to 
determine when a vessel was within three miles. There was nothing to 
indicate it, and it was a matter of judgment between the American ves- 
sels and the cruisers. The vessels seemed to be apprehensive that they 
would be taken off three, four, five, or six miles. 

Q. Now, from your experience, is it, or is it not, difficult to determine 
from a vessel, especially when the shore is high, what distance you are 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 2501 


off ?—A. I think it is a very difficult thing indeed to determine just the 


distance from shore. 

Q. Now from which class of vessels—there were some naval vessels 
and those fitted out by the provinces—which class of vessels did you 
have trouble from ?—A. They were all called cutters in 37, if my mem- 
ory serves me right. 

Q. Do you know from what you learned whether there was any differ- 
ence in the treatment of the men and the liberties given to them, the 
degree of severity practiced, as between officers of the regular navy 
and those of the cutters fitted out by the provinces ?—A. Well, I was 
not in the bay. When I was in the bay there were three sailing cutters. 
Of late years those captains seemed very exacting, but. when the naval 
officers came they seemed to be more liberal and easy. They would go 
aboard and tell them what the regulations were, and leave documents 
with them, and advise them not to catch inside. 

Q. How was it with the captain of the Canadian cutters ?—A. They 
were very arbitrary. 

Q. Were there frequent complaints?—A. Yes; I think so. I can’t 
say. I saw two vessels taken down at Margaree one morning—Glouces- 
ter vessels, I think. They made a great deal of trouble that day, but 
really at that time I could not see that the cutters were to blame. I 
saw the vessels taken. They were within three miles. 

Q. So far as position is concerned, the cutters were not in fault, but 
did you know anything about the conduct of the officers when they 
boarded them ?—A. No; we were under sail, trying to get out of the way 
of the cutters. 

Q. What was done, and what the people complained of, you were 
not witness of ?—A. No. 

Q. Now I want to ask you, going back to the year 1837, was there 
any other difficulty with reference to the right to draw the lines from 
headland to beadland? I don’t ask you whether you had this experi- 
ence yourself?—A. Well, I heard that matter freely discussed among 
the American fishermen, but I knew nothing of it. 

Q. You had no experience of it ?—A. No. 

Q. But you heard it discussed ?—A. Yes. 

Q. As a question between them and the cutters ?—A. No, not to my 
knowledge. Ihave only been aboard vessels when they were telling 
about this, that, and the other thing being wrong, about the drawing of 
these lines from the headlands, and about the cutters exacting things 
that they ought not. “oe 
. Q. For what reason was it, when the licenses were at a low fee, that 
your people took them?—A. For fear they would be seized. They 
knew, of course, that the three-mile limit, as it was understood, was an 
indefinite thing; it created a fear on the part of the captains that they 
might be innocently taken. Then again, as I have said, there were 
times when they were satisfied that the inside fisheries were valuable. 

Q. So it was partly the value of the privilege of being able to fish 
where they liked, and partly the fear of being taken when they ought 
not to be?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you made any inquiries specifically as to the captures of 
those vessels and the rules laid down ?—A. I have heard a great deal 
about it. az 

Q. You have no statistics ?—A. No. | 

By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. You were speaking of the lines drawn from headland to headland; 


what years did you refer to?—A. I referred particularly to the year 


. 


2502 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


1837, and so in the year 1833, the two years I was mackerel-fishing 
in the gulf. 

Q. Well, you were uot referring to any other years except those ?—A. 
No, I never was there. by, 

(). And you were only speaking of those years ?—A. Yes, that is, in 
regard to the headland question. — ; 

Q. But you spoke of the cutters being very exacting 7—A. Well, of 
course, I only spoke of what I heard aboard those vessels. I knew 
nothing about it. ae 

Q. You were just merely speaking of something you heard in 1837. 
A. Yes. 

Q. How often did you hear it that year?—A. Well, I was down there 
quite late in the fall, and it was a subject of constant conversation on 
board our American vessels. 

Q. Don’t you think you are mistaken ?—A. About what? 

Q. How many cutters were there ?—A. Three I think. 

Q. Did you ever see any cutter there that year?—A. I saw them 
take those two Cape Ann vessels. I think it was 1837. I may be mis- 
taken as to the year. 

Q. You only saw one. Yes. 

Q. How many did you say you saw ?—A. I saw three of them, I think 
it was, cruising in the bay that fall I was there last time. 

Q. Were they exacting to you?—A. No. 

Q. They didn’t annoy you?—A. No. 

Q. You didn’t fish inshore at all?—A. Yes, we did. I caught—that 
is, the vessel I was in—23 barrels. 

Q. But you caught those in one day 7—A. Yes, one morning before 
breakfast. 

Q. All the rest you caught outside ?—A. Yes. 

@. You never caught any except the 23 barrels of mackerel in- 
shore ?—A. That is all ever when I was engaged in the bay. 

Q. You caught these in the morning before breakfast 7—A. Yes. 

@. You never tried to fish inshore any other time. You fished off- 
shore every other time except that ?—A. I think so. 

(. Was there a cutter in sight when you caught these ?—A. No, sir. 
If there had been we would not have been likely to catch them. 

Q. You said you had an idea it was right ?—A. I was only speaking 
of the opinions of the captain’s. 

Q. That was the only time you ran any risk ?—A. Yes. We went off 
St. Peter’s early in the morning and got becalmed. — ; 

Q. That is the only time you run any risk ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where was that 7—A. Right off St. Peter’s. 

Q. That was pretty good fishing. You had a pretty good time ?—A. 
Yes; that is the best fishing I ever saw in my life aboard a vessel. 

@. One would wonder why you didn’t try it again ?—A. We didn’t try 


it then. We were coming out of harbor and got becalmed, and the fish 


came up all around us solid, apparently, and just as soon as wind 
breezed up the fish all left us; but during this time we had 23 barrels. 

Q. Well, you never tried it again?—A. I don’t recollect that we ever 
tried it again. 
3 Q. The cutter never troubled or boarded you any time whatever ?—A. 
No. : 

Q. From what experience you have had, your own personal experience, 
the best fishing is inside ?—A. Within three miles? 

Q. Certainly.—A. Well, no. 

Q. You never saw anything better than that catch of 23 barrels for 


—— 


—_—si eo 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 2503 


the time, and that is the only time you tried?—A. We were surrounded 
by hundreds of vessels. 

Q. But, looking to your own personal experience, the best fishing 
there that you knew was within three miles ?—A. Yes; well, I never 

saw 23 barrels caught, that I recollect, so quickly as we caught them 
that morning. 

Q. And you never tried it any other time? (No answer.) 

Mr. Trescor. Did he understand your question ? 

Mr. WEATHERBE. Did you understand ?—A. Yes; I believe I under- 
stand. 

Q. Then, with regard to the value of the inshore fisheries in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence, you have no personal knowledge later than 1837 7—A. 
No practical knowledge. 

Q. But since that I understood you to say you had acquired knowl- 
edge by procuring information ?—A. I commenced when I was done 
fishing to fit out vessels. 

Q. Have you ever acquired any knowledge from others with regard 
to the value of the inshore fisheries since 1837?—A. I have invariably 

consulted all my captains. 

Q. You recollect when the agitation was going on in regard to the 
Reciprocity Treaty in 1852 in your State?7—A. Yes; in 1854. We were, 
down to that, against it. 

Q. I suppose you are acquainted with Senator Hamlin?—A. Yes; 
and with Mr. Pyke, too. He voted against it. I circulated a petition. 

Q. J am asking you with reference to Senator Hamlin. He took an 
interest in this question of the fisheries, did he not ?—A. Yes; bat I 
have really forgotten about it. 

Q. You yourself, in 1852, did not consider the fisheries of the culf of 
any value, | think 7—A. In 1852? I always considered them of some 
value. 

Q. How much value? In 1852-54, for instance.—A. Well, I don’t 
know any distinction, since I went fishing, in the value of the inshore 
fisheries. 

Q. Now, you are here as officer of the government in the State of 
Maine, having collected statistics, and you have brought a book full of 
statistics, | sappose ?—A. You said I came on purpose for this examina- 
tion. I had a dispatch, and a very few moments after I got the dispatch 
I came unprepared. 

Q. What I said was that you had collected statistics. It was known 
* you had collected statistics. It was known you were a man likely to be 
_well acquainted with the subjeet. Now, I want to ask you whether it 

was considered in the State of Maine in 1852, 1853, 1854, or any of those 
years, that the inshore fisheries were of a great deal of walue 7—A. Well, 
so far as I know, although I had not at that time traveled over the State . 
of Maine, I probably got hold of the opinion of our fishing communities 
and towns, from Portsmouth to Eastport, and they were opposed to the 
opening of our markets to foreign fish, or, in other words to the Reci- 
procity Treaty. 

Q. What I want to get at is this, whether the general feeling in that 
State was opposed to it, or whether the people were generally of the ~ 
opinion that the inshore fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence were of 
very little use toyou. Tellus that?—A. So far as I know ever since 
I can recollect having anything to do in Bay Chaleurs they always were 
frightened at this three-mile restriction. 

Q. You certainly understand my question. Were your fisherman of 


2504 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the opinion that the three-mile inshore fisheries of the gulf were of use 
to them or not ?—A. I think they considered them of considerable value. 

Q. You think they did ?—A. Yes. ; is 

Q. Did that opinion continue, or, if not, when did the opinion change? 
—A. I don’t know that that opinion has ever changed. 

Q. Let me read you just a few lines from the remarks of Senator Ham- 
lin. I suppose you are a supporter of his, that you have been, and are 
at this time ?—A. Yes. } 

Q. He is a very able man ?—A. He is said to be. ' 

Q. After describing the magnitude and importance of the American 
fisheries “as the great fountains of commercial prosperity and naval 
power,” he declared that “if American fisherman were kept out of these 
inshore waters, the immense amount of property thus invested would 
become useless, and leave them in want and beggary, or in prison in 
foreign jails.,—A. That was in 1852. That was from headland to head- 
land. 

Q. Now my impression was that they were discussing the question 
irrespective of the headland question. They were discussing the ques- 
tion whether the fish were not caught within three miles of the shore. 

Mr. Dana. It may save you the trouble of examining if I state the 
known fact which cannot affect the witness’ mind, that that speech was 
made while Great Britain claimed the whole Bay of Fundy and all these 
bays. 

Mr. WEATHERBE. He was arguing in favor of reciprocity. (To the 
witness.) Are you acquainted with Mr. Scudder, of Massachusetts ?— 
A. No. 

Q. Mr. Scudder, of Massachusetts, said, referring to the mackerel: 

These fish are taken in the waters nearer to the coast than the codfish are. A con- 
siderable portion—from one-third to one-half—are taken on the coasts and in the bays 
and gulfs of the British provinces. The inhabitants of the provinces take many of them 
in boats and with seines. The boat and Seine fishery is the more successful and pro- 
fitable, and would be pursued by our fishermen were it not for the stipulations of the 
Convention of 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, by which it is con- 
tended that all the fisheries within three miles of the coast, with few unimportant ex- 
ceptions, are secured to the provinces alone. Mr. Tuck, of New Hampshire, said: This 
inshore fishery, which we have renounced, is of great value, and extremely important 
to American fishermen. From the first of September to the close of the season, the 
mackerel run near the shore, and it is next to impossible for our vessels to obtain fares 
without taking fish within the prohibited limits. The truth is, our fishermen need 
absolutely and must have the thousands of miles of shore fishery which they have re- 
nounced, or they must always do an uncertain business. If our mackerel men are pro- 
hibited from going within three miles of the shore, and are forcibly kept away (and 
magento force will do it), then they may as well give up their business first as last. 
It will be always uncertain. 

That was correct at that time?—A. No; Mr. Tuck never went fishing 
there. 

Q. I don’t suppose Senator Hamlin did either?—A. No. 

Q. Were these opinions correct or not?—A. I guess not. 

_Q. They didn’t represent the popular view?—A. I guess they were 
discussing the agitated question of the line from headland to headland. 

Q. I will have to read it again. ‘The truth is, our fishermen need 
absolutely and must have the thousands of miles of inshore fishery which 
they have renounced, or they must always do an uncertain business.”— 
A. I understard perfectly. The idea of Mr. Tuck is that, because ves- 
sels are excluded from three miles, it must make the business uncertain. 

Q. Do you think it was a profitable business outside in the gulf at 
that time, if they were excluded from within three miles?—A. It was a 
profitable business. It was so in 1852, and it continued so until 1868. 

Q. If the American fishermen had been excluded by force, rigidly, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2505 


from within three miles of the shore, it would have been a profitable 
business from 1854 to 1868?—A. Yes; the mackerel have been drop- 
ping off since as early as 1866. Since the period I have mentioned it 
has not been profitable anywhere. 

Q. Was that true at that time—that which.I have read ?—A. I guess 
it wants to be qualified some. 

Q. Nobody seems to have controverted it in Congress ?—A. If that 
refers strictly to within three miles of the shore, they attach more con- 
sequence to that three-mile restriction than the fishermen generally do. 

Q. You said Senator Hamlin was a popular man. Didn’t he repre- 
sent the fishermen’s views at that time 7—A. I suppose he thought he 
was. 

Q. Are you able to state that he did not?—A. What do you say ? 

@. What great authority can you give us now that took a different 
view of the case at that time ?—A. I say he attaches a greater conse- 
quence to it than the fishermen generally. 

Q. Give me the name of any man of eminence.—A. I should very 
much rather have an opinion on that question from practical mackerel- 
men than from the honorable Hannibal Hamlin. 

Q. Can you give me the opinion of practical mackerel-men obtained 
at that time?—A. I have seen them since I came to Halifax. I have 
conversed with a great many that know more about the fisheries than 
ever he did. 

Q. Your own experience that morning exactly coincides with Senator 
Hamlin’s views ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, now I ask you if you can give me the name of any practical 
mackerel-man who understood the question in 1852, and who would 
differ from Senator Hamlin ?—A. I recollect that there was that con- 
troversy, since you have brought it up, but it has left my mind, and 
perhaps I never should have thought of it unless you had brought it 
up. 
Q. What was the feeling of your best fishermen 7—A. I am unable 
to say. 

Q. But what their feelings are now, that we claim money, you are 
able to say 7—A. Are you claiming money ; is that so? 

Q. You know that, don’t you?—A. Well, I have heard something 
ne money compensation, but I didn’t know you were sincere in it, 
really. 

Q. You think this is a farce?—A. I believe every word you say. 

Q. I ask you whether you were not aware that the proceedings under 


.which you were produced here were in consequence of a claim on the 


part of Great Britain for money?—A. Well, I recollect it has been 
talked of that you claimed money. 

Q. Did you know you were brought as a witness to give evidence to 
resist it ?—A. I know I came here to testify what I knew of the fishing 
in the bay. 

Q. Did you know that the parties who brought you here were resist- 
ing a claim for money ?—A. No; I did not. 

Q. Do you know the provisions of the Washington Treaty with regard 
to the fisheries?—A. Well, the main part of the Washington Treaty I 
suppose I do know. I know we have a right of fishing inshore. Is not 


that correct ? 


Q. Certainly—A. And I thought that the Englishmen thought the 
free fishing on our coast was insufficient to compensate you for our privi- 
lege of fishing inshore, and you wanted so much money on top of that. 
I never knew there was any sum or anything of that kind. 


2506 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You did understand the question ?—A. I understood at the time it 
passed, but how many years is it since it passed ? 

Q. Well, never mind. What did you suppose this Commission was 
for ?—A. I haven’t thought of it for years. 

Q. You didn’t know we were trying that very question now ?—A. I 
did. 

Q. You gave your evidence with that knowledge?—A. Yes. 

@. You think now tbat the value of the inshore fishery has changed ?— 
A. No; I have the same opinion that I have always had. I have said 
all through that they were valuable to us. 

Q. Now with regard to the right of carrying our fish free into the 
United States, I suppose you think that is of no advantage to your fisher- 
men, that provision of the treaty 7—A. I have no idea it is any advantage 
to our side of the house. 

Q. It is a disadvantage, isn’t it?—A. Yes; it is against us. 

Q. Be kind enough to explain how ?—A. Well, all these things seem 
to me to be regulated by supply and demand. If there is 100,000 bar- 
rels of mackerel hove into our market on top of what we produce the 
tendency is to depreciate prices. 

Q. If this provision of the treaty increases the supply of mackerel in 
the United States market it will bring down the price of fish ?—A. State 
that again. 

(Question repeated.)—A. I think it would have that tendency. 

Q. That is the reason you think it is no advantage to your fisher- 
men to have the privilege of fishing inside?—A. No; putting both pro- 
visions of the treaty together, it is no advantage, because the supply is 
increased and the prices are depreciated. 

Q. You will admit this, that it is an advantage to the consumers by 
bringing down the price? You will admit that ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then in point of fact it gives you cheap fish 7—A. The tendency is 
to cheapen them. 

-Q. For the people of the United States?—A. Yes. 


No. 54. 


WILFORD J. FISHER, of Eastport, Me., called on behalf of the Gov- 
ernmeut of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. Of what place are you a native ?—Answer. Grand Manan. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. Fifty-six. 

Q. Where do you live now ?—A. At Eastport, Me. 

Q. How old were you when you moved to Eastport ?—A. I could not 
tell you without thinking. 

Q. You are fifty-six years old now. How long have you lived at 
Eastport ?—A. Since 1845. 

Q. What is your present occupation at Eastport?—A. I am agent of 
an express company, and am doing a general commission business. 

Q. How long have you been doing that?—A. For the last six years. 

Q. Do you recollect how old you were when you left Grand Manan 
and went to Eastport?—A. I left Grand Manan when I was twenty-two 
years of age. 

Q. While you lived on Grand Manan what was your oceupation?—A. 
My father kept an extensive fishing establishment and was fitting out 
fishing vessels. I worked with him until I was twenty-one or twenty- 
two years of age. 


SRO wire. tut 


1 ~ “i ee SS 
‘a 

¥ _ , 

~~ 


4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. — 2507 


Q. Describe to the Commission what sort of business you were engaged 
in while assisting your father in this business?—A. Our business was 
fitting out fishermen, curing fish, drying fish, and marketing them after 
I got old enough. 

Q. You were engaged in that until you were twenty-two?—A. Yes. 

Q. About what time did you go into your father’s business? Early ?— 
A. Lused to go to school in the day-time and work in the fish-yard night 
and morning before and after school. As I got older I took more charge 
of the business. 

Q. As I understand you the time you left school and went into the 
establishment entirely you were twenty-one years old and were in charge 
of the whole department of fitting vessels, dealing with the fish, taking 
them to market included 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, after that what did you do?—A. After that I went to sea 
for two years. 

Q. What do you mean when you say you went to sea; did you go as 
a fisherman ?—A. No; I went in a merchant vessel. 

Q. Your father’s vessel ?—A. No; in an American vessel. 

Q. After that?—A. After that I brought up in Eastport and went 
into business. 

Q. What sort of business at Eastport ?—A. Fitting ont fishermen 
and general business, curing fish, and trading in West India produce, 
and all kinds of business done by our general stores. 

Q. How long did that continue 7—A., 15 years. 

Q. What did you do after that?—A. I went to Grand Manan again 
and weir-fished for 8 or 10 years. About that time I commenced to 
make herring oil. I had weirs at Grand Manan, and went over aid en- 
gaged in the manufacture of berring oil and smoking herring. 

Q. How long did you remain at Grand Manan ?—A. 8 or 9 years, I 
think ; I made no calculation and should not like to state exactly. Some- 
where about that time. 

Q. Well, after you went to Grand Manan did you return to East- 
port ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have been ever since at Eastport ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What business have you been in since ?—A. Express and general 
commission business. I have been buying hake-sounds for parties in 
Boston. 

Q. As I understood, when you went back to Grand Manan you were 


, doing a weir business 7—A. Yes, sir. 


Q. What have you done with them ?2—A. I have them still. 

Q. Do you work them yourself?—A. No; I rent them. 

Q. You have been renting them ever siuce?—A. I have been renting 
them the last six years. Sometimes I rent them for an annual payment 
for the privilege, and some of the weirs | rent on a fifth, building the weirs 
myself. In other cases I make a trade with them to ’puild the weirs for 
so much, and give me so much net proceeds. I make the best trade I 
can. 

Q. How many weirs are you interested in?—A. Three large weirs. 
One we didn’t build this year. Only two were built this year, on ac- 
count of the smoked herring being very low. 

‘Q. Are you still employed in smoking herring and ue them ?— 
A. Yes; in the way I have stated. 

Q. I want you to explain to the Commission the shawicter of the busi- 


_ hess done at the weirs. What force have you employed there ?—A. 


Well, the weirs are built in the eddies, places where the herring fre- 
quent. They are caught in the weirs, The weirs are built-so that the 


_ —_— ’ + . 


2508 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


tide never leaves them. We are obliged to do that so as not to destroy 
the herring, to have none die in the weirs. They have a large gate 
which takes boats 12 feet wide and we take them in masts and all. We 
can open it twelve feet wide the whole height of the weir so that the 
boat comes in without stepping the masts. We seine the herring that 
are in the weir and put them in the boats, then take them ashore and 
wash them out, scale them and string them on sticks and put them in 
the smoke-house, smoke them and box them. After being boxed we 
sell them wherever we can get most money for them. 

Q. What force have you employed in those weirs?—A. When‘ fished 
there myself I had five to twelve men according to the season. Some 
months we are obliged to employ more men than others. 

Q. On each weir ?—A. No; that would be what we call a gang. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. How many men are required to manage one weir?—A, Twelve 
men to manage one weir. 

Q. It would take twelve men?—A. Yes; that would be for two or 
three months; that is all. 


By Mr. Trescot: 

Q. What months ?—A. October has usually been the best month for 
the last two years. Six or eight years ago we used to catch them even 
earlier in the season. Sometimes we got a heavy haul of herring in 
April. Last year we got a very heavy catch in April. 

Q. Then it comes in the fall again?—A. Yes; they come towards fall 
again. They vary with the seasons on account of the weather or some 
other cause we can’t control. They are about sure to come within a 
month or six weeks. 

Q. Can you tell the Commissioners what is the proportion, as far as 
catching herring is concerned, in Grand Manan of the weir fishery to 
the sea fishery? Could you form any idea at all?—A. I don’t know 
that I understand the question. You mean the proportion of herring 
caught in weir to the proportion caught in nets? 

Q. Yes; at sea in nets and boats. 

Mr. THomson. What do you mean by at sea? 

Mr. TREscorT. I mean the proportion caught in weirs as comparéd 
with those not so caught. I don’t care whether inshore or out.—A. There 
is none of the class we catch in weirs but very few that are caught in 
pos The herring we smoke are smaller than these caught in nets and 

oats. 

Q. Then the smoked herring are essentially from weirfi-shing ?—A. 
Yes; exclusively so, except as to a few large herring smoked late in the 
year, or partly smoked, that they call bloaters. 

Q. The herring fishery at Grand Manan consists of different classes 
of fish. There is the smoked herring, that is one class?—A. Yes. 

Q. What others ?—A. The other business is to catch them in nets for 
bait to catch line fish with, and another business is to catch them in nets 
to freeze them and sell them fresh for food. There is a very few people 
who follow the catching of herring to pack in barrels of salt because the 
market has been so dull. It is not followed much and has not been for 
a number of years to any extent. It is followed some, but not to the 
extent it used to be. 

(. Now what are pickled herring ?—A. They are herring caught in 
nets, put in barrels, and sold as pickled herring. 

Q. They are the same kind that are caught and frozen, but not the 
same kind that are smoked?—A. Just so. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2500 


Q. Then you have the smoked herring, the fresh herring caught for 
bait; the herring that is caught and frozen for bait and food, and the 
pickled herring, which you say is a very small proportion of the busi-_, 
ness; so I understand you?—A. You understand pretty nearly. But 
the freezing of the herring for food can only be done in cold weather, so 
that if the weather is not cold enough some of that is pickled, but not 
much is pickled otherwise, as the salt and barrels are an expense. 


TUESDAY, October 1, 1877. 
The Commission met. 


Examination of WILFORD J. FISHER continued. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. When you closed yesterday, you had described the way of 
fishing to the Commissioners, and stated that the smoked-herring fishery 
at Grand Manan was almost essentially a weir-fishery ; can you give the 
Commission any idea of what the amount of smoked-herring business 
is at Grand Manan ?—Answer. I estimate the amount of smoked her- 
ring cured at Grand Manan at 400,000 boxes. 

Q. Annually ?—A. Yes; annually. 

Q. Where is the market for these smoked herring 7—A. In the United 
States almost altogether. 

Q. These herring are shipped directly from the Island of Grand 
Manan ?—A. They are now, uuder the present arrangements, under the 
treaty. 

Q. In what are they shipped? In American vessels or by parties in 
- the island ?—A. There are four English vessels that have been running 
in, one from New York and three to Boston. These vessels are owned 
by people at Grand Manan. Then there are occasionally other vessels 
chartered to load herring for Boston. 

Q. Do I understand by that that they are chartered by Grand Manan 
people ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What vessels are these generally 7—A. Just such vessels as they 
ean pick up. It does not make any difference as to the character of the 
vessels running from Grand Manan to New York or Boston. Either 
Ehglish or American vessels can go. 

Q. You say there are four vessels owned by people in Grand Manan in 
which they ship smoked herring to Boston and New York ?—A. Yes; 
a large part of them ; and a large part of them are sold at Eastport. 

Q. Mostly caught in weirs ?—A. Altogether in weirs. 

Q. Then there would be no portion that would be caught by Ameri- 
cans ?—A. No; unless they went there and leased part of the weir. 

Q. It is all a Grand Manan fishery essentially; the cargo is shipped 
in Grand Manan vessels and shipped by the people of Grand Manan ?— 
A. Yes; in addition to the smoked herring business at Grand Manan, 
the island of Campobello smokes, I should think, 250,000 boxes; Indian 
Island, Deer Island, and the rest of the small islands around the imme- 
diate vicinity about 50,000 more. I should say there were 700,000 boxes 
of seeker herring cured in our immediate vicinity on these British 
islands. 

'Q. These fisheries at Campobello, Deer Island, and the neighboring 
islands are all fisheries of the natives of those islands?+-A. Yes. 

Q. Now with regard to the frozen and pickled herring, what sort of a 
_ business is done at Grand Manan and the islands adjacent, to the best 
of your knowledge, in that article?—A. The frozen herring and pickled 
herring are the same herring, caught in the same way and by the same 


2510 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


men. The frozen herring business can only be carried on in the winter 
when the weather is cold. If a man sets his net for bait and gets more 
herring than he wants to use, he salts them in barrels; that is the only 
way he can utilize them at this time. In the winter season they fit out 
exclusively for this frozen herring business, but there are times in the 
winter season when thaws come on and soft weather; then, if a man sets 
his nets out and catches fish, he can’t freeze them, and he then pickles 
them in barrels. But there is no way they can make so much money 
out of heiring as freezing them and selling them in a frozen state; it 
requires no barrels and no salt, and the outlay is labor altogether. 

(. Well, by whom is the catching of herring for the purpose of freez- 
ing conducted generally 7—A. Mostly altogether in our vicinity by Do- 
minion fishermen. There is a small number of fishermen at Eastport 
that, when there is no herring there, would go down to Letite and Back 
Bay, and amongst the islands; but the number of Dominion fishermen 
is very small. 

@. What is the proportion of the foreign fishing compared with that 
of the natives at Grand Manan ?7—A. I think Eastport does not send 25 
boats or vessels in the frozen-herriug business on the shores of the Do- 
miniou of Canada. Perhaps in relation to that I had better state a cir- 
cumstance: there are a good many people living at Eastport who are 
British subjects; they have British vessels; they fish in British vessels. 
On the other hand, there is a number of American vessels that have been 
owned and are owned at Deer Island and other places on the Dominion 
side, that are owned and sailed by Dominion men, but still are under 
American register; they have never been transferred. But the number 
of Americans who leave our place to go fishing for frozen herring is 
comparatively small in proportion to the whole number engaged in the 
business. 

Q. What is done with these frozen herring, are they shipped 7—A. 
Yes, sir. There is a good many of these bought at Eastport by the 
people there who engage in that business, and areshippedon the steamer 
to Boston. But a large quantity is sold to American vessels that go 
there and buy them. 

(. For the purpose of bait ?—A. No; mostly for food. I should sup- 
pose those that come for bait only take small quantities. Those that 
come from Gloucester carry away full loads. 

(. Well, besides these two herring fisheries, what are the fisheries 
around Grand Manan ?—A. The fishing around Grand Manan is codfish, 
pollock, haddock, and hake. . 

Q. Are these fisheries within three miles of the shore or off shore ?-- 
A. Some are within three miles. 

Q. Which? Tell the Commissioners where the fisheries are, as a 
rule.—A. There is a tine early in the spring and late in the fall when 
the fish come in close to the shores at Grand Manan, codfish and haddock 
principally. The haddock around Grand Manan is caught inshore 
mostly altogether—mostly within the three-mile limit. The pollock and 
codfish are mostly caught outside of the three-mile limit. Gravelly 
ground is a great place for pollock, and that, in my judgment, is without 
the limit. The hake fishing, since trawling has commenced, they have 
gone off shore. It was always supposed that you had to get a muddy 
bottom to catch hake. This trawling business has brought up a 
new idea, and the fishermen have found their best hake last year and 
this year on hard bottom between Campobello and Grand Manan in 
deep water—larger fish and more of them—and the fleet of vessels that 
have followed hake fishing this year have most all exclusively confined 


ah a Ul a ae ae _—— SO a a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2512 


themselves to that fishing-ground which I consider without the three 
mniles. 

Q. Of these four fisheries, hake, haddock, pollock, and cod, what is 
the respective value? I mean as fisheries—A. The quantity of hake, 
and their value, I could give you very near, but the others weuld be, of 
course, more liable not to be correct. I am largely engaged in the sound 
business. The quintal of hake makes one and a quarter pounds of 
sounds, and it is not only my business to know what sounds I buy my- 
self, but how much are brought in the neighborhood, and whose hands 
they gointo. This year the hake business has been larger than any 
year since my remembrance. 

Q. This year, I understand, it has been offshore?—A. Yes, a very 
large catch. I estimate the quantity of sounds this year in our district, 
including in that Grand Manan and everything from Point Lepreau, 
33,000 pounds. Perhaps it may be more, 1,000 pounds over. It will not, 
I think, gounder. By taking a quarter from that you have the quantity 
of hake caught. Now, last year we didn’t get quite ten tons of sounds 
altogether in the whole district. 

Q. What I want to get at is this: What is the relative proportion 
that the hake fishing bears to the haddock, cod, or pollock? Which is 
the most valuable, 1 mean generally 7—A. The inshore or offshore ? 


Q. Take it altogether, and then I will ask you separately. Is the had-_ | 


dock offshore or inshore 7—A. It is offshore and inshore. 

Q. How about the pollock 7—A. The pollock is caught more offshore 
than in. 

Q. Then the codfish ?—A. The codfish are almost exclusively caught 
offshore, except, as I tell you, in the early spring or late in the fall there 
is a school of small codfish that strikes within the limits, and the people 
there catch them more or less. 

Q. Then, as i understand, generally the codfish is an offshore fishery 
—the valuable codfish?—A. Yes. 

Q. The hakei s offshore also ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. The pollock is also offshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the haddock is inshore and offshore?—A. Yes, but under- 
stand me, I don’t say there is not a few hake, pollock, and cod inshore. 

Q. I mean generally. Now of these four which is the most valuable ? 
—A. At Grand Manan this year the hake fishery is the most valuable 
by far. At Campobello the hake offshore is most valuable. 

Q. Now, by whom are these fisheries mainly conducted at.Grand 
Manan ?—A. They are conducted by the inhabitants of Grand Manan. 

Q. Is there a large proportion of American fishermen engaged in these 
fisheries. within your knowledge ?—A. I know of Americans who go 
there and hire by the month to the weir fishermen. 

Q. No, I am talking about the American boats and vessels ?—A. The 
quantity of American boats and vessels that go there to fish inside is 
very small, very small indeed. 

@. Could you form any estimate what would be the annual value of 
the fishery at Grand Manan, taking the opposite coast, and taking the 
neighborhood generally, from your experience as a man of business 
with some practical acquaintance with the operations yourself as a mer- 


- chant; what would be the annual value, including Grand Manan and the 


coast from Letite to St. Andrews and Lepreau ?—A. I-should set the 
value of the fish caught at Grand Manan at not over $400,000.. They 
might go $500,000, but I think if I had $500,000 I would have some 


left. : 
Q. That is for Grand Manan. Now for the coast on the other side,— 


. 


2512 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


A. From Point Lepreau to St. Andrews and all the islands connected, 
including Campobello, I should put less than a million. It is a pretty 
hard thing to estimate, but I should say considerably less than a mill- 
ion, with everything included—herring, oil, the fish-tummies, smoked 
herring, hake sounds, and the fish themselves. 

Q. That excludes Grand Manan ?—A. Yes; I put down Grand Manan 
at $400,000, and all the other places around our vicinity at not overa 
million. 

Q. Now, I will read some questions put to and answers made by a 
gentleman supposed to be familiar with that portion of the fisheries, and 
without asking you to contradict him, I want to ask you how far your 
judgment agrees with his. I refer to the evidence of James Maclean, 
merchant, Letite, parish of St. George, Charlotte County, New Bruns- 
wick; do you know him?—A. Very well; I am very intimate with him. 

Q. These are the questions and answers, if you will attend to them: 


Q. Judging from your practical knowledge of the fishery, being an owner of vessels, 
and dealing with the men who fish as you do, what do you say, at a low figure, would 
be the value of the fisheries and the actual worth of the fish caught by British subjects 
between the points you mention from Lepreau to Letite; what would be a fair aver- 
age value from 1871 ?—A. I should estimate the quantity for Charlotte County and the 
adjoining islands. We all fish, and it would be difficult to separate the two. 

Q. You are acquainted with the value of the islands a8 well?—A. Yes; I visit Grand 
Manan occasionally, and the adjoining islands often. 

Q. What is the catch of the whole ?—A. A low estimate for our fishing would be 
$1,000,000 for each year. 

Q. For British subjects ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is a low estimate ?—A. I think Iam under the mark; in fact, I have no 
doubt of it at all. 

Q. And it may be a good deal more ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have not a shadow of a doubt that it is at least a million?—A. No. 

Q. Aud our American friends take a considerable amount more ?—A. They take as 
many. 

Q. They have more men and more vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And they take at least as much ?—A. Yes, fully as much as we do, if not more. 

Q. Have you any doubt that they take more ?—A. I believe that they take more. 

-Q. You have no doubt of it ?—A. No. 


Q. With your knowledge, would you say that was an accurate state- 
ment of the fishing between Letite and Lepreau ?—A. I shall not alter 
my estimate by hearing that. 

Q. Do you know of any American vessels engaged in these waters, 
in those fisheries, taking anything like an approximate amount of a mill- 

‘ion ?—A. No; it is impossible. It is erroneous. The imports of the 
country would not show it, and cannot show it; it is impossible. 

Q. Now, here is from another witness whom you may know also, 
Walter B. McLaughlan, light-house keeper and fishery-overseer at Grand 
Manan, in the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick ?—A. I have known 
him from a boy. 

Q. (Reads :) 


Q. You are well acquainted with the fisheries of Charlotte County; take the main- 
land fishing from Letite as far as Lepreau, is that a good fishing ground ?—A. It is con- 
sidered a good fishing ground; I am not personally acquainted with it, and can only 
say from what I have hebna: My duties have never carried me there. 

Q. But your practical knowledge extends there ?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. What would be the value of the mainland fishery, the British fishery alone, tak- 
ing it from Letite to Lepreau ?—A. My own fishery is, say, $500,000 ; Campobello and 
West Isles must equal mine, and the mainland will certainly be more than half of 
that, if not equal to it. 

Q. Well, then, you et Campobello and West Isles as about equal to Grand Manan ?— 
A. Y es; speaking as Ido, Not knowing exactly, I should say so. 

& Q. That would be a half a million for these two islands, and a half a million for 
Grand Manan, that makes a million, and you think the mainland is half as much as 
either of those; that would be a fairfestimate for the mainland ?—A. Yes; Charlotte 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2513 


County is a very important fishing county. In 1861 I was a census enumerator, and I 
think the result of the fishing in that county nearly equalled that of all the other fish- 
eries of the province, with the exception of St. John County. 

- Q. You put half a million as the catch of the British fishermen on the mainland for 
the year, and, in your judgment, the American catch is thesame ?—A. All Ican judge 
is by what I hear; they come down in their vessels; I think they have theirown way 
on the North Shore, very much more than on Grand Manan. I have a great deal of 
trouble with them there. But on the North Shore I think they have things pretty 
much as they want. I would say that they probably surpass our own catch. 

Now does your judgment conform with that statement 7—A. If I 
heard that currectly, he estimates Grand Manan at $500,000, and 
Campobello and the adjacent islands $500,000, and halt a million for 
the mainland. 

Q. If he means that the mainland is half of Campobello and West 
Isles, it would be only $250,000 7—A. He is under my estimate, but I 
should not alter my estimate. 

Q. You put half a million for the mainland for a year? You don’t 
agree with him?—A. No; I think he should have added $250,000 more. 

Q. Now he is asked if, in his judgment, the American catch is the 
same as the British, and answers, ‘All I can judge by is what I hear. 
They come down in their vessels. I think they have their own way on 
the North shore very much more than at Grand Manan.” Have you 
any idea that that is correct ?—A. No. As Ihave said before, of that 
amount caught there there is not one-fifth that is caught by Amer- 
icans. I would be safe in saying less. 

Q. At page 256 he is asked by Mr. Foster what he includes in the 
mainland. Mr. Thomson answers, “From Point Lepreau to Letite ;” and 
the witness says, “From Point Lepreau to St. Andrew’s.” Then, the 
question is asked, “ You make one million and a half taken by Ameri- 
eans and the same by British fishermen,” and the answer is yes; and 
then he answers in the affirmative to the question whether that is a 
low estimate.—A. That is where we differ. I say that of one and a 
half million taken, not more that one-fifth of that quantity may be taken 
by American fishermen. That includes off shore and inshore. 

Q. You have been living in Eastport of late years ?—A. Yes. 

@. And you know the neighborhood of Eastport, Lubec, and Cut- 
ler?—A. Yes, very well, indeed. 

Q. Now, we bave been told, although I can’t find the evidence—what 
are the occupations of those places ?—A. Eastport is. what you would 
call a fitting village or town, or whatever you may call it—about 4,000 
population. The merchants there fit out fishermen, but those fishermen 
_ that they fit out are the same men that come up from those islands— 

' they come up to Eastport and fit out there to prosecute this fishery on 
the North shore, at Grand Manan, and other places iu the Bay of Fundy. 
The amount of American vessels fitted from Eastport in the fishery 
business is very small, and it is decreasing every year, because it has 


_. not been a paying business. Then Eastport sends a number of vessels 


to the Magdalen Islands in the spring for herring. That has been here- 
tofore quite a business with us, and is still followed up. Not so much 
this last year as formerly, because year before last they lost a great 
deal of money by the Magdalen herring, on account of the price of 
smoked Magdalen herring declining very much in the market. A good 
many people kept Magdalen herring lying in the smoke-house until this 
year. They didn’t sell them until this year. Then there is a certain 
number of small boats and vessels which don’t exceed 25 at the outside, 
in my estimation, that fit out for this fishery; that is, hake fishing and 
frozen herring off shore. That is about the extent at Eastport. Then 


158 F 


2514 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Lubec, which is in the same district as Eastport, I think fits six vessels, 
with which they fish exclusively on the Bank. They don’t fish on the 
inshore ground. I could name these vessels, but I didn’t bring any list. 
Then Lemoine, in Maine, has had at Grand Manan this year, fishing, 
three vessels. They fish without the limits. What we call Lubec 
Narrows has had one. Cutler has had two. At Pembroke, Perry, and 
all these places the people are not fishermen. They don’t go fishing. 
They may take a boat when the pollack is in, in the summer, and go 
down one or two days, and catch a few fish to take home for the winter’s 
use, but they don’t make a practice of fishing and they have not. 

Q. This question was asked Mr. Maclelan: “Along that coast, from 
Eastport aud Lubec toward Mount Desert, are there not great numbers 
of fishing villages that depend upon fishing fora living?” And the 
answer was: ‘“ They are about the same as our own; they live on coast- 
ing, fishing, farming, lumbering, and so on, just exactly as ours do. I 
know no difference between them.” Then the question was asked: 
‘“‘ Without our fisheries could they live by fishing?” And the answer 
was: “No; because if they could they would not come to our fisheries. 
They would not come so far away. They do not have fisheries of their 
own.” Now, of course, without the fisheries they could not live by fish- 
ing; but do you know of any community from Eastport to Mount Desert 
that depends upon fishing, and that would be compelled to go over to 
Grand Manan waters to fish ?—A. No; not for the last twenty years. 
As I| tell you, Lemoine had this year three vessels ; last year it had two. 
They used to have eight or ten thirty years ago. And these men have 
gone into the Bank fishing to Grand Bank. This year there are only 
three that have favored the Bay of Fundy fishing, and they fish on the 
Grand Manan Bank, at a place which is outside the limits. 

Q. In your experience in the smoked-herring business could the buasi- 
ness sustain a duty of a dollar a barrel ?—A. Well, it has always been 
by the box. I think the old duty was five cents a bag. 

Q. If that duty were reimposed what would be the effect ?—A. The 
people would have to stop smoking them now. 

Q. How is it about the accuracy of this statement, according to 
your judgment: “Q. Now, taking Grand Manan, judging by the re- 
turns that the fishermen give you, can you tell us what each family 
makes by fishing? Do you know that from statements of their own, or 
from personal observation ?—A. I think $1,000 a year would be the 
utmost each would make. I don’t mean clear; they certainly would not 
clear that”?—A. I should think that was large. Still, as I don’t visit 
Grand Manan, and I don’t know how the people live there now, I should 
rather not answer as to that. 

Q. What would you estimate to be the money-value of the fish that 
the average fisherman would catch there in a year ?—A. They would 
have to be divided into a good many classes—the weir-fishermen, the 
hake-fishermen, and the people of Grand Manan farm a good deal in 
conuection with their fishing. They all raise their own potatoes, and 
have cows, and are well to do. It would be a pretty hard thing for me 
to state. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Did you ever know a fisherman who prosecuted that business for 
a living and got rich?—A. Some I know of since we had reciprocity, 
both at Grand Manan and Deer Island, who went into the smoked- 
herring and herring-oil business that are very well off. 

Q. Well, that is business ?—A. Yes, sir; but I never knew a man 


eae a ee eee ee, 2 = «<a ee a 
ae , 
» = 
— ? 
¢ : 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2515 


who hauled the fish out of the water with his hands line-fishing that 
ever got rich. 

Q. You have never known one that laid up money ?—A. No; not in 
that business alone. 

Q. Have you an opinion as to the effect of throwing gurry over on the 
fishing grounds ?—A. That has been talked over among the fishermen for 
the last 40 years. I have somewhat changed my mind in regard to it. 
We used to think once it was a great injury, but I have about made up 
my mind that this gurry is devoured by sea-fleas, star-fish, and other 
insects that inhabit the water, and that it is not so great an injury as 
we have heretofore thought it. I have no doubt that the gurry thrown 
overboard will attract dog-fish, cat-fish, skates, and that kind of fish in 
large numbers while it lasts, but I don’t think it injures the fishing 
grounds to the extent supposed. 

Q. Do you think the effect would last from one season to another ?— 
A. No. 

Q. What do you say about the effect of trawling ?—A. I think trawl- 
ing is an injury to the fish, inasmuch as trawls set in the mouth of the 
bay will catch the mother fish as they come in to spawn. And [ think 
they are an injury so far as they catch these mother fish. I don’t think 
the trawls frighten the fish or drive them out, but I think they catch 
the mother fish as they come in to spawn, and thereby decrease the 
quantity. 

Q. You speak of the mouths of the bays. Would it be the case off the 
coast on the Banks ?—A. It would not do so much injury there. I don’t 
know that it would do any injury there at all. It would only be an 
injury on spawning grounds or in the road—set in the road where: the 
fish come in to spawn. 

Q. On the spawning. grounds or at the mouth of a bay of moderate 
size ?—A. On the spawning grounds or in the road that the fish take to 
the spawn See it would be an injury. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. You live now at Eastport ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I understood you to say you came from Grand Manan ?—A. I was 
born there and lived there until I was 22. 

Q. L understood that you owned American vessels ?—A. No. 

Q. That you yourself owned American vessels or shares in them after 
you went to Eastport ?7—A. I owned shares in American vessels, freight- 
ing vessels, and I also owned a share in the brig I went to -the coast of 
Labrador in. 

Q. Was that an American or English vessel ?—American registry. I 
also owned a share in an English vessel that I went to Newfoundland 
herring fishing in. 

Q. Well, in order to hold an American registry you must have been 
an American citizen ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After leaving Grand Manan you were naturalized ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long ago were you naturalized ?—A. I was naturalized, I 
think, about 1851 or 1852; Lam not certain. I had to live in the United 
States five years before z got naturalized. 

Q. At present you are an American citizen and have been since 1851 
or 1852?—A. Yes. 

Q. Your sympathies are naturally with the American Side- of this 


| question ?—A. My sympathies are for the right, and have been. ever 
since I was a boy in this fishery. Whatever is right. 


Q. Well, that is a very wide term. It depends on our stand-point. 


2516 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Your sympathies are with the American view of this question?—A, 
Not unless they are right. 

Q. Well, then, I will put it in another way. You think the Ameiican 
view is right ?—A. {don’t know about that. I have my own views, and 
I think they are right. 

Q. Do your views differ from the American views; do you differ from 
your neighbors in Eastport ?—A. I differ from some of them, and agree 
with a good many Dominion people I have talked with. I have also 
differed from some of them. 

Q. Do you consider that the Americans ought not to pay anything 
under this Commission ?—A. No; I don’t think they should. I think 
the markets they get are a full equivalent. 

Q. Well, that is all I wantto know. Your sympathies, then, are with 
the American views ?—A. I don’t take it on the line of sympathy. I 
take it on the line of right, of justice between man and man. 

Q. At all events, your view is that the Americans should not pay a 
dollar ?—A. Not if they keep the markets open. 

Q. Well, as the matter now stands ?—A. I think that is a fall equiva- 
lent. 

Q. Thatis your idea?—A. For the inshore fisheries. 1 think the open- 
ing of the American markets is an equivalent for the Dominion fisheries 
inside of three miles. 

Q. Well, when you say that, from what stand-point are vou speaking, 
the fisherman’s or the merchant’s? Or do you take a broad, patriotic 
view of the matter?—A. I am speaking from my own judgment in the 
business I have followed through life and am still following. 

Q. Well, when you say that the free market is an entire equivalent 
for our fisheries, who do you say the free market is given by; at whose 
expense? Is it at the expense of the American fishermen or the body 
of the United States people?—A. The free market and taking off the 
duty is in favor of the fishermen. 

Q. The American fishermen ?—A. No, the Dominion fishermen. 

Q. And against whom is it?—A. If the duty was put on it would be 
against the Dominion fishermen. 

Q. Well, against whom is the taking off of the duty ?—A. Itis against 
the United States, of course. ; 

Q. But what class in the United States ?—A. I don’t know how you 
intend to class them. I suppose the United States is a country, and if 
the country takes it off, I suppose the country must make up the 
amount. : 

Q. How did you class the British fishermen? You thought it was an 
advantage to them to have the duty off?—A. Simply because it gives 
him a better market for the fish he produces. 

Q Tell me why you cannot class the Americans. Tell me what effect 
it has on the American fishermen, taking off the duty. Have you not 
thought of it at all?—A. I don’t know that I ever heard a fisherman 
speaking in regard to it. 

Q. And you are serious, then, you never heard an American fisher- 
oe complain of this duty being taken off?—A. I don’t know that I 

ave. 

Q. Have you ever thought of this, as a practical man, whether it 
affects the American fisherman at all or not?—A. I have given it a good 
deal of thought. 

Q. Whom does it affect, the merchant or the fisherman ?—A. I say 
this, that to put on a duty of five cents a box on smoked herring by the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2517 


American Government would amount almost to a prohibition of the 
smoked-herring business. 

Q. Well, how as to $2 a barrel on mackerel ?—A. Mackerel is a fish 
I don’t know much about. I never fished it. I have packed a good 
many while I was fish inspector at Eastport, twenty-five years. 

Q. Are there any being smoked on the American shores as at Campo- 
bello?—A. Yes. 

Q. Would they increase in price in consequence of a duty ?—A. I can- 
not answer that question. 

Q. Are you serious about that?—A. Iam. If you put on a duty and 
call me after it has been in operation a few years, I will answer that 
question. I can’t anticipate anything that might happen. 

Q. You are serious in saying that five cents a box on herring would 
be a prohibition to British fisheries, but you can’t say whether, if they 
were prohibited, it would have the effect of raising the price of Ameri- 
ean fish ?—A. No, I could not say. 

Q. Then, according to you, the influx of British fish has no effect upon 
the price of American fish at all?—A. I didn’t say so. 

Q. Well, do you say so? I think it follows from what you have 
said ?—A. I don’t say anything about it. ' 

Q. Do you decline to give any opinion in regard to it ?—A. I won’t 
at the present time. 

Q. Have you any doubt that the fish sent in from the British prov- 
inces has a sensible effect in making the price of fish smaller in the 
United States market ?—A. They may have that tendeney to keep the 
price down. ; 

Q. Tell me if you believe they have that tendency or not ?—A. I 
think they may have that tendency. 

Q. Do you say that they have that tendency ?—A. The more fish put 
on the market, of course the tendency is that way, but there is a point 
beyond which that tendency is inoperative. The moment you reach the 
point of the consumer, when he can’t afford to pay, he has to buy some 
other article of food. Since my time the quantity of smoked herring 
sold in the United States markets has increased tremendously. The 
prices they are selling for now are 20 cents in New York, 21 cents in 
Boston, and 15 cents in Eastport. With the boxes of the present size 
that will pay the fishermen, but at the sizes they made boxes fifteen or 
twenty years ago, no fisherman could follow it. When you come to 
increase the price of herring over 25 cents per box the consumers won’t 
buy them. 

Q. There is a certain amount of fish of that description carried into 


the United States and certain prices are paid. I presume you got the 


same price for American fish as you got for English cured fish. Is it 
not so? I mean smoked fish in boxes—A. Yes. 

Q. I want you to tell me, if you will, whether the importation of that 
kind of fish from the provinces has any effect on the price of American 
fish ?—A. I presume it may have some effect ; but, as I told you before, 
I cannot answer that question, because last year smoked herring was 9 


| gents a box. 


Q. Do you say it makes a difference or not—the importation of that 
fish from the provinces—on the price of American fish ?—A. Last year 
we had the same supplies, and smoked herring were 9 cents a box; and 
this year, with still the same supplies, they are 15 cents a box at East- 
port. I cannot tell what occasions the difference in price. I suppose 
the consumption rules it more than anything else. 

Q. Does the importation of American fish affect the price, injuriously 


2518 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


or otherwise, of American cured fish of the same description ?—A. I 
could not tell you. 

Q. You have no opinion on the subject at all ?—A. No. 

Q. I now ask you if the fish that come in from the British provinces 
have not the effect of making the fish cheaper to the consumer, what- 
ever effect it may have on the fishermen ?—A. I don’t know but what it 
may. 

(. Have you any doubt about it ?—A. 1 cannot form any correct esti- 
mate, because the price is not two years alike. But there is one thing I 
ean assure you, that the price of fish can never rise above a certain level, 
because it then gets beyond the reach of the consumer, and when it goes 
beyond the consumer’s means he will not buy it. Consequently that will 
regulate itself. 

Q. Does not the larger supply of fish that comes in from the provinces 
under the treaty, than what did before the treaty, have the effect of 
‘diminishing the price of fish, and therefore diminishing the price to the 
consumer ?—A. I cannot answer the question; I don’t know. 

Q. Though you have dealt in fish forty years?—A. Yes; fully forty 
years. 

Q. How often have you gone of late years to Grand Manan to look 
how the fisheries are carried on ?—A. I have not been at Grand Manan 
much for the last six years. 

Q. You have not been there for the last six years ?—A. I have been 
there, but not much. 

_Q. How many visits in the last six years ?—A. Three or four visits. 
@. And how long would the visit be on each occasion ?—A. Not very 
ong. 
" Q. About how long ?—A. Sometimes one day, sometimes only a few 
ours. 

Q. Then each visit would not average half a day ?—A. Perhaps not. 

Q. And how many visits have you made in six years ?—A. I have made 
perhaps four, maybe five. 

Q. What season of the year would you visit Grand Manan ?—A. In 
summer time. 

Q. The summer time is not the brisk fishing-season there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I thought it was spring and fall ?—A. It depends on what kind of 
fish you have reference to. 

Q. Take herring.—A. The frozen herring are only taken in the winter. 
The smoked-herring trade is in the summer at the center of the island, 
Wood’s Cove, and round there, and late in the fall at White Head, Three 
Islands, Two Islands, and other parts of the island. They don’t com- 
mence their smoked-herring fishing there till later in the season. 

Q. For six years you have only been there five times, on an average 
half a day at a time, and of course you have had no opportunity of 
knowing from personal observation what American vessels fished round 
the island nor what American boats fished round the island. That is 
obvious, is it not'?—A. I think I have. ' 
Fas Although you have not been there ?—A. Although I have not been 

ere. 

Q. I said from personal observation.—A. I have not seen an Peters 
can boat fishing at Grand Manan; not in the act of fishing. 

. From personal observation you could not possibly say ?—A. I have 
not seen any fishing there. I deal with all those men. 

_. Then the information you have been pleased to give the Commis- 
sion in regard to the business done at Grand Manan has not been from 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2519 
personal knowledge, but from information received from other persons ? 
—A. I do not say so. 

Q. Do you not state that now ?—A. [lived in Grand Manan until I 
was 22 years of age. 

Q. I confine you to the last six years. During the whole of that time 
you did not visit the island scarcely once a year, five times during six 
years. From personal observation you have admitted you cannot speak 
of the island during those years.—A. I told you I had not seen any fish 
caught there. 

Q. All theinformation you have been pleased to give the Commission 
in regard to the fishing round Grand Manan, and the quantity taken 
by American and British subjects, has been based on hearsay ?—A. It 
has been based on my own actual knowledge, and from conversation 


_ with Grand Manan people and others, and men engaged in the business. 


Q. Is not that hearsay ?—A. You may call it what you have a mind 
to; I don’t purpose to call it hearsay. 

Q. I understand you to swear that information you got from other 
persons, depending on others entirely for the truth of those statements, 
you decline to call hearsay ?7—A. I say you can call it hearsay. I come 
here and swear to the best of my judgment in regard to this matter, 
from my personal knowledge of Grand Manan, having been a long time 
resident there, having fished there, and having been through the whole 
thing; from conversation with men there engaged in the business, and 
having had business transactions with them, and from receiving ac- 
counts and getting my pay from weirs I own there, which is pretty good 
authority, in my opinion. 

Q. I wish to get from you exactly what the authority is; that is hear- 
say, is it not? Do you say you own weirs there?—A. I own shares in 
weirs there. 

Q. Who are the other owners with you, Grand Manan people or East- 
port people?—A. With the exception of my sister, they are Grand Ma- 
nan people. My sister owns a share with me; she lives in Eastport. 

Q. She has not been naturalized ?—A. No; I did not know it was re- 
quired of women. 

Q. Do you include the herring you take in your weirs in the Ameri- 
can catch ?—A. No; I pay the government a tax for the weirs, and I 
suppose they must claim the fishing. 

Q. Do you include that portion of the fish out of the weirs which comes 
to your share as being part of the American catch ?—A. I include it as 
being part of the Dominion catch, it being caught at Grand Manan. 

Q. Though it is taken by an American citizen simply doing business 
in our waters, and you call that British catch ?—A. Ido; it was caught 
in British waters, and I pay $10 a year to the Dominion Government on 
each weir. 

Q. Therefore itis British catch ?—A. I presume so; it is caught in 
British waters and cured on British soil. 

Q. Then if Americans come in and catch fish very nearly the same 
place in their vessels, which would be taken out of British waters, you 

would call that British catch ?—A. British vessels cannot smoke her- 
ring on board their vessels. 

Q. Do I understand that if American vessels come in and catch her- 
ring or any other fish within three miles of the shore, in British waters, 
that you call it British catch ?—A. No; if an American vessel catches fish 
in British waters within three miles of ‘the shore, I call it American catch, 
but caught in British waters. 

Q. You have been pleased to put the value of all the catch round 


2520 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Grand Manan at $400,000 a year ?—A. Yes; I said that I call it, in my 
judgment, not over $400,000; not to exceed $500,000. 

Q. Do you mean British or American catch or both ?—A. I mean all 
that is caught within three miles by both parties or all men. A great 
many Nova Scotia people come down and camp. I mean that is the 
catch of the island. 

Q. This you give as your opinion from having been on the island one 
season a year for six years, and that for half a day ?—A. I gave that 
opinion as being to the best of my knowledge, and I obtained it from 
reliable sources. ; 

Q. Do you know Mr. W. B. McLaughlin ?—A. I have known him for 
a long time. : 

Q. Is he a respectable man ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is he a credible man ?—A. I should think so. I don’t know any- 
thing to the coutrary. ; 

Q. He is not a man who would make a misstatement under oath will- 
fully ?—A. I would not suppose he would. 

Q. Are you aware that it was his business to find out what the actual 
catch of the British subjects was, and to make a return to the govern- 
ment ?—A. I was aware he was fishery warden. I pay my weir-tax to 
him. 

Q. You are not aware that it was his business to find what the 
actual catch of the island was, and to make a return to the govern- 
ment ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Mr. McLaughlin has stated that such was his business, and from 
the returns made by the people themselves, which, he stated, were en- 
tirely under the mark, he found that their catch amounted to half a mill- 
ion dollars. Are you prepared to contradict that statement ?—A. I am 
prepared to let my statement stand as based on my judgment. 

Q. Either state that Mr. McLaughlin’s statement is untrue or that it 
is not.—A. I will not make any such statement. I will say that Mr. 
McLaughlin, I think, bas erred in judgment. 

Q. At page 254 of Mr. McLaughlin’s testimony there is the following: 

Q. Will you tell me what is the value of the fish taken by our own people each year 
on the island ?—A. Well, I could tell from my fishing returns of last year. I could 
have brought them all. 

Q. Do you make up your return for the whole year ?—A. Yes; from the lst January 
to the 31st December. 

Q. You do not make it up for the fiscal year 7—A. No; Iam ordered to make it up 
to the 3lst December. The return states itself that it isso made up. The amount in 
my estimate, as I made it up from inquiry last year, is $383,891, but that is far under 
the real catch. 

Q. You say that it is far under the actual value of the catch. How do you account 
for its being under the-amount ?—A. Well, the fishermen are reluctant to give an ac- 
count of what they make on account of the taxation. We have a free-school law now, 
and are taxed very heavily for it. 

Q. It happens that you are an assessor of taxes?—A. I am at times, and I ama 
county councilor, and have been a census enumerator. 

Q. And they do not like to give this information to you? You are the last person to 
whom they want to give it?—A. Well, I tell them that the Marine Department never 
lets such information go out of its possession. They tell me there is no need of its 
doing so; that I have it all in my hands. They say it is too thin. 

_ Q. Then you believe the amount you have given is an underestimate ?—A. I know 
it must be over half a million dollars; that is our old $500,000. 

He is a gentleman who swears that from the lips of the men them- 
selves he got a statement that the catch each year amounted to $383,891, 
in round numbers $400,000, as being the British catch alone. He says 
that is underestimated, and it is at least $100,000 more—A. I cannot 
help it; I have given you my opinion. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2521 


Q. With your means of obtaining information, do you still presume 
_to put your opinion against his?—A. I do; I don’t depart from it one 

article. 

. Q. Although it was Mr. McLaughlin’s business to obtain a return of 

the catch ?—A. I have given a great deal of thought and care to it for 
ears. 

‘ Q. Then I understand you to say that the catch amounts to $400,000 

in round numbers, including the American catch and every catch all 

round the island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then Mr. McLaughlin has told an untruth deliberately, or those 
people lied to him when they said they caught $383,891 in value, and in 
round numbers $400,000; do you think the people have deliberately de- 
ceived Mr. McLaughlin ?—A. I don’t say so; Mr. McLaughlin may have 
deceived himself; I don’t say whether he has been deceived or the peo- 
ple have been deceived. 

Q. He got those figures from statements of the people themselves.— 
A. I gave mine from my own judgment, and I know of no reason to alter 
them. 

Q. Is it probable, in your judgment, that the people of the island de- 
ceived Mr. McLaughlin as to their catch ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Is it probable?—A. I don’t know what the people and Mr. Mc- 
Laughlin may do together. 

Q. Do you think it is probable?—A. Mr. McLaughlin, until a few 
years ago, had lived on Gannet Rock, which is a long way from the 
mainland, and was not connected with the fisheries. 

Q. Mr. McLaughlin has stated that he went from house to house and 
asked each man as to his catch ?—A. That may be. . : 

Q. You know Grand Manan; do you believe the people would delib- 
erately deceive Mr. McLaughlin, and make believe that they caught 
more fish than they actually did?—A. I don’t know; I cannot answer 
that question; I don’t know what the people of Grand Manan told Mr. 
McLaughlin. 

Q. You cannot form any opinion as to whether the people would de- 
ceive him or not?—A. I don’t wish to form any opinion, because I do 
not think it is necessary. I don’t wish to form one without due consid- 
eration, and unless I know with whom he talked. I don’t propose to 
have anything to do with Mr. McLaughlin’s talk with the inhabitants. 

Q. Do you admit that, if Mr. McLaughlin tells the truth, when he 
says that he went from house to house and made inquiries of each fish- 
erman, he has better means of information than you ?—A. I won’t admit 
that. I know Mr. McLaughlin well, and I won’t admit it. 

Q. Do you intend the Commission to understand that Mr. McLaugh- 
lin is a man not to be relied on?—A. I don’t wish to state anything of 
that kind. I have made my statement, Mr. McLaughlin has made his, 
and the Commission may choose between the two. ' 

Q. You have sworn that you believe him to be a credible man ?—A. 
Yes; as we speak of men, I have nothing to say against Mr. McLaugh- 
lin. He has lived in Grand Manan; I know him; and he has lived on 
-Gannet Rock for a long time. ; 

Q. Would his living on Gannet Rock alter his moral character ?—A. 
Not a particle, but it deprives him of seeing the extent of the fishing 
at Grand Manan. ; ‘ 

Q. That may be. Does it deprive him of the opportunity of going 
_round and asking the different people what they caught?—A. No; he 
can go round. 

Q. Do you believe the inhabitants would misinform him by telling 


2522 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


him that they caught more than they did, for the purpose of increasing 
their taxes?— A. I could not answer the question; the inhabitants can ~ 
answer it; I refuse to answer it. 

Q. You say that, although Mr. McLaughlin had those means of infor- 
mation, you still put your judgment against his?—A. I do. 

Q. Is there not as much fish taken around the island of Campobello 
and Deer Island, with its surrounding islands, the parish of West Isles, 
as is taken round Grand Manan ?—A. I should think that Grand Manan 
exceeds them both in smoked herring, and exceeds them largely in hake 
this year; but Deer Island exceeds Campobello in codfish and frozen 
herring. It would be quite a calculation to figure it up. 

Q. Is there as much fish taken round the two islands Campobello and 
Deer Island, and the parish of West Isles, as there is round Grand 
Manan ?—A. Yes, and more. 

Q. How often are you in the habit of visiting the mainland from Le- 
tite to Lepreau and to St. Andrew’s ?—A. I go to St. Andrew’s once in a 
while. There is very little fishing there. There is more law than fish- 
ing. 

. It is the county town ?—A. Yes. 

. Are you in the habit of visiting Letite often ?—A. No, I am not. 

. Or St. George or Penfield ?—A. No. 

. Nor the parish of Lepreau?—A. No. 

. Nor Back Bay?—A. No. 

. Nor Mace’s Bay ?—A. No, and there are very few fish caught there. 
. How long is it since you have been to any of those places?—A. 
Some I never was at. 

Q. Take St. George, which is a considerable town, how long is it since 
you were there ?—A. I could not tell you the number of years; it is a 
long time since. There is no fishing there. 

Q. How long is it since you have been there?—A. A good many 
years. 

Q. How long is it since you have been in any part of the parish of 
Peufield ?—A. A good many years. 

Q. And the parish of Lepreau ?—A. I don’t know that I was ever 
there but once or twice in my life. 

Q. Do you know Mr. James McLean ?—A. Yes; I see him very often, 
and his brother, who lives at Eastport, who is junior partner in the 
firm of A. & J. McLean. 

Q. Is Mr. James McLean a respectable and reliable man ?—A. As far 
as J know him. 

Q. He is not a man who would willfully make a misstatement under 
oath ?—A. I could not tell you about that. Mr. McLean speaks for 
himself and I speak for myself. 

Q. As far as you know, is he a man who you believe would not will- 
fully make a misstatement under oath ?—A. I could not answer the ques- 
tion. 

Q. Have you no belief ?—A. I assail no man’s character; I did not - 
come here to do that. I came here to give a fair, candid opinion in re- 
gard to this business, and I don’t propose to be brought in conflict with 
any other man or injure any other man. If that is the purpose for 
which I was brought here I don’t wish to say more. 

Q. You were not brought here to ventilate and air your views, but 
for the purpose of answering such questions as might be put to you by 
the American and British counsel.—A. I was not brought here to tell 
whether Mr. James McLean was a reliable or unreliable man, I presume. 

(J. You were asked this question: Is Mr. James McLean a respectable 


DOOQLHOLO 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. +2523 


man, in your judgment?—A. I told youl thought he was, as far as I 
know. ; 

Q. You refuse to answer whether you believe he would tell a lie under , 
oath ?—A. I refuse to answer the question. . 
Q. Do you believe he would not tell a lie under oath ?7—A. That ques- 

f . tion I do not answer. 
Q. Did you ever hear of his having been charged with telling a lie 
under oath ?—A. I do not answer that question. 
{ Q. Do you refuse to answer the question, whether you ever heard 
that he had been charged with telling a lie under oath ?—A. Not unless 
the Commission enforces an answer. I don’t wish to go into Mr. Me- 
Lean’s character. 

Q. I insist on an answer to the question, whether you ever heard of 
Mr. McLean being charged with telling a falsehood under oath.—A. I 
don’t know he was ever under oath. 

Q. Did you ever hear any person say that he had made a misstate- 
ment under oath ?—A. I don’t know that [ ever did. 

Q. You don’t remember having ever heard it said that Mr. McLean 
had made a misstatement under oath ?—A. Fishermen say that he is a 
confounded story-teller; but you cannot always believe what they say. 
They say he lies to them. I don’t know. 

Q. Do you mean that he lied under oath ?—A. I did not see him un- 
der oath. I don’t know or wish to say anything in regard to that. 

Q. You have said that the fishermen who take the fish out of the 
water do not make much money ?—A. I made that statement; that of 
the men who caught fish with hook and line I never knew one to get 
rich. ; ; 

Q. They have to deal with the fish merchants doing the same kind of 
business you are doing. I suppose the fish merchants get the profits?— 
A. I don’t know. I know a great many fish merchants who do not get 
rich. 

Q. Did you ever know any who did ?—A. I know that I carried it on 
a long time ané did not get rich. 

Q. Did you ever know any who did ?—A. In our vicinity? Yes, in 
connection with other business. We have a number of firms who are 
rich. 

@. You never have visited the main land, except an incidental trip to 
St. Andrews, because you say you were never in Pennfield, never at 

, Letite, and never in Lepreau?—A. I never was in Lepreau more than 
once or twice in my life. 

Q. Have you been there within the last ten years?—A. I have not. 

Q. And yet, although you have never been on the main land, excepting 
an incidental visit to St. Andrews, you undertake to put your opinion of 
the catch on the main land against the opinion of a man like Mr. Mc- 
Laughlin, whose special business it is to attend to the fishing off that 
coast ?—A. I do. 

Q. Do you know Mr. James Lord, of Deer Island?—A. Very well, in- 
deed. I had along conversation with him before he came down here. 
Mr. James Lord has been buying hake sounds for me for six years, 

_ Q. He is a respectable man?—A. I think so. 

Q. You do not think he would make a willful misstatement under 
oath ?—A. I don’t think he would. All men are liable to mistakes and 
to errors in judgment. 

Q. You admit you are liable to mistakes ?—A. It may be so. You 
may find men who won’t agree with me. 


2524 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You won’t admit you make mistakes ?—A. I have given you my 
opinion to the best of my judgment, and you have got it., _ 

Q. Although you swear that all men are liable to make mistakes, you 
swear you are not ?—A. I don’t understand it in that way. 

Q. You have stated there were Dominion men who own shares in 
American vessels running to Eastport and elsewhere. Will you tell me 
who they are ?—A. I did not say so. 

Q. You said American vessels owned by Dominion men ?—A. I did, 
and can give you their names. 

Q. Give them ?7—A. There is the Sea Spray, which is chartered this 
year by a man named Powers, of Deer Isle, Maine, I think, and he is sein- 
ing mackerel on the coast of Maine. Then there is the schooner Look- 
out. 

Q. They are American vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What do you mean by chartered? There is a difference between 
owning and chartering ?—A. A great deal of difference. 

Q. I asked you who the Dominion owners were ?—A. The Dominion 
owners are the Holmeses. 

Q. Where do they live?—A. In Deer Island some of them, and some 
at Beaver Harbor. There is the Charlotte Augusta, the captain of 
which is William Holmes. She is owned by the family of Holmes who 
live at Fairhaven ; and the Lookout is owned by the same family. 

Q. Are they British subjects ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Living at Deer Island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And not naturalized in the United States ?—A. No, they are not 
naturalized. 

Q. They are owned by them, and American registered ?—A. No, I did 
not say that. 

Q. The vessels are run in another name; in whose name do these ves- 
sels run ?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. How then do you know the vessels have Dominion owners ?— 
A. I know it by hearing the parties themselves say so, and by talking 
with some of the principal owners of the vessels. 

Q. Did you never inquire in whose name they were running ?—A. I 
never went to the custom-house to see in whose name they were regis- 
tered. 

Q. You never asked 7?—A. No. 

@. Are they American registered ?—A. They are American vessels 
running under American registry. 

Q. Of course, you are aware that no British subject can own an Ameri- 
can vessel, or any share in an American vessel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Round Deer Island and Campobello I think the fish are caught 
by boat fishermen ?—A. Not altogether. 

Q. There is a great quantity caught by them ?—A. Deer Island is get- 
ting a great many small vessels. 

Q. Fishing round their own island?—A. They don’t fish there. There 
is very little fishing round Deer Island. 

Q. lam speaking of the fishing round Deer Island or West Isles?—A. - 
The fishing at Deer Island and West Isles for frozen herring is followed 
in boats inshore, but the fishing is mostly done in vessels. There are a 
few boats there ; some 22 feef boats. 

Q. Round Deer Island, West Isles, and Campobello the fishing is 
in British waters, and within three miles of the land?—A. Yes, and at 
weed Manan. Hake is caught out toward the Wolves outside of three 
Iniles. 

Q. You know Quoddy River ?—A. Yes. 


[a aE = 


—_— NEO EE Eo OO —=— 
| , 

Fe 

| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2525 . 


- Q. Where does it run? It isa river running into the bay ?—A. Some 
call it Quoddy River; others call it Passamaquoddy Bay; there are dif- 
ferent names for it. 

Q. Passamaquoddy Bay is above.—A. Some people call it St. Andrew’s *” 
Bay ; it is always called St. Andrew’s by the people with us. In fact, 
there is no river by the name of Quoddy River. I know of no river by 
the name of Quoddy River. 

Q. You have lived at Eastport all the time you have stated, and you 
never heard of a salt-water current in the neighborhood of Deer Island 
and Campobello bearing the name of Quoddy River ?—A. I did not 
say so. A salt-water current and a river are two different things. A 
river is supposed to be fresh water, though salt water may flow into it. 

Q. Is there not a salt-water current there commonly known as Quoddy 
River ?—A. Not by our people. 

Q. Do you know the stream called Quoddy River ?—A. I know of no 
pa called Quoddy River. I know where Quoddy is, and the entrance 

to Quoddy Harbor. 

Q. I understand you that, though living so long at Eastport, in 
close proximity to West Isles and Campobello, you never heard of the 
sea-current called Quoddy River 7—A. I don’t know it by that name. 

Q. What name do you know it by ?—A. On the way to Eastport, be- 
tween Cherry Island and Campobello, and, in fact, all around Eastport 
on both sides of it, the currents are very swift. There is a shallow place 
‘we call the Ledges, which lies below Cherry Island, rather toward East- 
port, where the tides of St. Andrew’s Bay and Cobscook Bay, of which 
Eastport forms the end, meet. If you ask fishermen where they are 
going, they always say that they are going off to the Ledges.: They 
will not tell you they are going to fish in Quoddy River. It is all Quoddy, 
and it is all this bay; but this particular point you are trying to come 
at, this shoal piece of ground that lies right on the point as the two 
swift currents come down by Moose Island, on which Eastport is built, 
we call the Ledges altogether. 

Q. Will you tell me how you know those particular portions you have 
described are what I mean by Quoddy River ?—A. I don’t know any- 
thing else you can mean. 

Q. For you never heard of Quoddy River ?—A. I give you the bound- 
aries of what I call Quoddy. 

Q. You said you never heard of Quoddy River?—A. I may have 
beard of it, but our fishermen do not call it so. 

Q. Did you not tell me you never heard of Quoddy River ?7—A. You 
asked me if I knew of a swift salt-water current called Quoddy River, 
and I told you I did not. 

| Q. I asked you if you had heard of Quoddy River, and you told me 
| you never had.—A. I don’t remember what answer I made to that. 

Q. I ask you now, have you ever heard in your lifetime of what is 
called Quoddy River ?—A. I may by some people, but as a general thing 
we don’t call it that. 

Q. Have you ever heard of it ?—A. I think it is likely I have. 

Q. Are you sure you have ?—A. I think it is likely I have. 

Q. Are you sure you have ?—A. [could not name any man who said it. 

* Q. Have you heard of it ?—A. Let it go that I have. 


By Mr. Trescot : 
Q. You have been asked whether you undertake to contradict certain 
_ testimony given by Mr. McLaughlin; I want to call your attention to 
some questions and answers to show whether you mean to contradict 


2526 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


him, or whether it is not the fact that you are in agreement with him. 
Mr. McLaughlin says: 

Q. Do you make your return for the whole year?—A. Yes; from the 1st January to 
the 31st December. 

Q. You do not make it up for the fiscal year ?—A. No; I am-ordered to make it up 
to the 3lst December; the return states itself that it isso made up. The amount in 
my estimate, as I made it up from inquiry last year, is $383,891, but that is far under 
the real catch. 

Q. You say that is far under the actual value of the catch ; how do you account for 
its being under the amount ?—A. Well, the fishermen are reluctant to give an account 
of what they make, on account of the taxation. We have a free-school law now, and 
are taxed very heavily for it. 

Q. It happens that you are an assessor of taxes ?—A. I am at times, and I am a county 
councilor, and have been a census enumerator. 

Q. And they do not like to give this information to you; you are the last person to 
whom they want to give it?—A. Well, I tell them that the marine department never 
lets such information go out of its possession. They tell me there is no need of doing 
so; that I have it all in my hands. They say it is too thin. 

Q. Then you believe the amount you have given is an underestimate 7—A. I know 
it must be over half a million dollars; that is, our old $500,000. 

Q. That is within the mark for your own island ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Of the British catch ?—A. Yes; our own Grand Manan people; because sometimes 
they come over from Campobello and other places, but I have nothing to do with that. 

Q. Well, now, is the American catch larger or smaller ?—A. I think it is larger. 

Q. Have you any doubt ?—A. No; because their appliances are so much better than 
ours, and I think their men outnumber ours. 


In regard to the last portion of the answer, what is your judgment 
as to the proportion of the American catch to the British catch 7—A. 
The American catch at Grand Manan is very small. I don’t think I 
was called upon to make an estimate of the amount. The American 
catch is very small indeed. 

Q. What is the relation of the British to the American catch at Grand 
Manan ?—A. I have denied emphatically that there was any American 
catch to amount to anything taken within three miles of the shore. The 
American catch at Grand Manan is taken almost entirely outside of the 
three miles. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. I understood you to swear that within three miles round Grand 
Manan there was no American catch whatever ?—A, I did not say so. 
I said very trifling. 

Q. What do you call very trifling ?7—A. I think the catch inside of the 
three-mile limit at Grand Manan by American boats is very trifling. 

Q. Or schooners?—A. There is not any American schooner fishing 
within three miles. You cannot mention and you cannot prove one. I 
do not believe but that $2,000 would buy all that is caught by American 
boats inside of the three-mile limit. 

Q. Then Mr. McLaughlin’s statement that the Americans caught 
$500,000 worth of fish there is and must be willfully false ?—A. Inside 
of three miles—yes, or he was mistaken. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Q. Mr. McLaughlin’s conversations as to the British catch could give - 
him vo information as to what was the American catch?—A. Not the 
slightest. Mr. McLaughlin must have reckoned the value of all the 
cargoes of frozen herring taken off the island and caught by Dominion 
subjects, or he must have reckoned the fish caught by American vessels 
at Grand Manan 15 miles out, or at the Ripplings 8 or 10 miles out to 
sea. He has madea gross mistake some way, but how I don’t know. 
He may be able to account for it; I cannot. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2527 


No, 55. 


JOSEPH LAKEMAN, fisherman, of Grand Manan Island, was called on 
behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot : é 


Question. Where were you born ?—Answer. In Lubec, State of Maine. 

Q. Where are you now living ?—A. On Grand Manan Island. 

Q. Are you now a British subject ?—A. No. 

Q. When did you move from Maine to Grand Manan?—A. In 1845. 

Q. Have you lived at Grand Manan since ?—A. Yes. 

@. What has been your occupation at Grand Manan ?—A, I began 
there in the green fish trade as a merchant, and I added to that weir 
and vessel fishing. 

Q. And are you now weir and vessel fishing ?7—A. I am not now 
vessel fishing, but I am weir fishing. I make that a specialty. 

Q. What fish are caught at and in the neighborhood of Grand 
Manan ?—A. Herring prineipally, and also cod, pollock, and hake. 

Q. What are you especially engaged in ?—A. The herring fishery. 

Q. Smoked or frozen ?—A. Smoked mostly. We freeze some few, but 
not many. : 

Q. Have you any idea as to the number of boxes of herring put up 
on the average annually at Grand Manan in connection with the smoked 
herring fishery ?—A. From 300,000 to 500,000 boxes are put up. The 
number depends upon the run of the fishing about the island. 

Q. Is the smoked-herring fishery of Grand Manan almost entirely a 
weir fishery ?—A. Yes; about all of itis so. Very few net herring are 
smoked. ; 

Q. Who prosecutes the herring fishery, as arule? Is it a native 
fishery, or is it participated in by people outside—by Americans ?—A. 
I cannot now call to mind any person, American born, who is engaged 
in the business at the present time, except Mr. Small, who is engaged 
in it to a very limited extent—he is a native-born American, and has 
been naturalized—and myself. 

Q. As far as the herring fishery goes, it is entirely a Grand Manan 
fishery, carried on by the native population 7—A. Yes, generally speak- 
ing this is the case. 

wa Where are the smoked herring sent ?—A. Mostly to the American 
market. 

Q. In American or Grand Manan vessels ?—A. Within the last few 
years, since, the new treaty came into operation, and Canadian fish were 
allowed to enter the American market free of duty, they have bought 
' coasting-vessels. 

@. Who have done so?—A. Our people. 

Q. The Grand Manan people?—A, Yes; they are owned at our island, 
and have been bought on the American side. American vessels have 
been converted into English vessels, and they are run to New York and 
Boston, taking there the fish of theisland and smoked herring principally. 

Q. Do you know anything about the frozen-herring business?—A. Yes. 

Q. How is it conducted, and what sort of a business is it?—A. The 
herring which are frozen are caught principally by our people on the 
island, and sold to the American vessels, which come there for them. 

Q. Do you know any appreciable proportion of American vessels 
which come there, catch herring, and freeze them ?—A. I do not. 

Q. What other fisheries besides the herring fishery are carried on at 
and around Manan Island ?—A. The cod, pollock, and hake fisheries. 


2528 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Are they inshore or off-shore fisheries ?—A. The hake, until within 
a few years back, has been considered altogether an inshore fishery, but 
since the introduction of trawling it has extended into deep water and 
off shore. They go out now earlier in the season than they used to do 
to fish for hake. 

Q. It has become an off-shore fishery ?—A. Yes; it is carried on be- 
yond the 3-mile limit. 

Q. How about the haddock fishery ?—A. We do not fish especially 
for haddock; those we take are caught promiscuously while we are 
eatching other fish. 

Q. Can you state, from your experience since 1845, what proportion 
of all the fisheries there, within 3 miles of the shore, is carried on by 
American vessels or boats?—A. When I went to Grand Manan Island, 
in 1845, and for say 10 years subsequently, more was done by American 
vessels there than now, or than has been the case for the last 10 years. 
There used to be quite a fleet of small vessels which came there from 
Hancock County, in Maine, but within the past 10 or 12 years this fleet 
has about all dropped off, with the exception of one or two vessels, and 
gone into another kind of fishing—Grand Bank fishing. They have 
built larger vessels, and consequently they have dropped our island 
fisheries. 

Q. What is your estimate as to the annual value of the whole Grand 
Manan fishery, taking it all in all?—A. I should say that it would not 
exceed $50,000 on the average, with regard to the fisheries carried on 
within the 3-mile limit. Taking into consideration the whole fishery, 
including the frozen-herring buSiness, I could not with propriety put its 
value at over $60,000 at the'most. I could not go beyond that, and I 
should say that $50,000 is nearer the mark; and I am putting the figure 
at the outside limit for the best years and the highest prices. 

Q. You include everything caught about Grand Manan Island ?—A. 
Yes; with the oil, sounds, and everything that is realized out of the 
fishery. 

Q. What number of boxes of smoked herring do you imagine is sent 
from Grand Manan to the American market ?—A. I should judge that 
at least three-quarters of our catch is so sent, and this product amounts 
to from 300,000 to 500,000 boxes a year. 

Q. What are they worth a box?—A. This year they rule low, but 
they have ruled as high as 45 cents a box, and from that down to 10 or 
aa I have sold the catch of the season at Eastport for 45 cents 
a box. 

Q. How many would be three-quarters of this catch ?—A. Call the 
average catch about 400,000 boxes, and then on the average 300,000 
would be sent annually to the American market. 

Q. What do you think they are worth ?—A. I should think that a fair 
average, One year with another, would be 20 cents a box, or between 20 
and 15 cents. 
$ Peta would 300,000 boxes then be worth at 20 cents a box ?—A. 

000. 

Q. What do you think is the value of the frozen-herring fishery, 
including bait and food and everything else?—A. I should suppose that 
the average quantity sent to the American market would be from 10 to 
12 cargoes a year. 

Q. What are they worth a cargo?—A. About $1,000, on the average 

Q. That would make $12,000 for frozen-herring?—A. Yes; from. 
$10,000 to $12,000. 

Q. What are the cod, hake, and pollock fisheries at Grand Manan 


; 
1 if 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2529 


worth ?—A. I should say that 10,000 quintals would be a fair average 
annual catch for the hake fishery. 

Q. What is a quintal worth?—A. I should say that the average price 
is about $1.25 a quintal. 

Q. That would make $12,500 as the annual value of this fishery ?— 
A."Yes. ° 

Q. What is the haddock fishery worth 7—A. As a general thing had- 
dock and hake go together. 

Q. What is the cod-fishery worth ?—A. I should say that on the aver- 
age 12,000 and probably 13,000 quintals would be a fair average annual 
eatch for this fishery at Grand Manan. 

Q. What is a quintal of cod worth?—A. From $3.50 to $3.75 on the- 
average, for large and small. 

Q. What would 13,000 quintals then be worth?—A. $48,750. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Do you make this up at the rate of $3.75 or $3.50 ?—A. I have- 
placed the rate at $3.75. 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Q. How much do these several totals make ?—A. $133,450. 

Q. Think a little and tell us what you meant by telling us a few” 
minutes ago that in your opinion the value of the annual catch of the 
fisheries of Grand Manan Island only amounted to $50,000, or at the- 
most to $60,000?—A. $500,000 I meant. Did I say $50,000? If I did,. 
that was a slip of the tongue—and if I said $60,000 I meant $600,000.. 

Q. This is the annual proceeds of the Grand Manan fisheries ?—A.- 
No; the value of the hake sounds is yet to be considered. 

Q. But as far as you have gone that is the case ?—A. I want to addi 
the value of 100,000 boxes of herring, which at 20 cents a box are 
worth $20,000, and the total figure is then $153,450, if I have made no 
mistake. This is the value of the average annual catch of smoked her- 
ring, frozen herring, hake, and cod at Grand Manan. 

Q. You think that the catch of fish at Grand Manan, in which you 
agree with Mr. McLaughlin, is worth about $500,000 ?—A. I do not 
think that it is.$500,000 a year actually ; but I think that I can safely 
put it down at $500,000. 

Q. What portion of the fishery there carried on within the 3-mile 
limit is conducted by Americans in American vessels. What part of 
this $500,000 is represented by American capital ?—A. My estimate is 
for fish taken by people residing on Grand Manan Island, and who are 
considered to be citizens. 

Q. Do any other people come there and fish ?7?—A. Yes; some, but 
not many. 

Q. How many American boats and vessels come within the 3-mile 
limit, off Grand Manau Island, to fish, and what is the value of their 
catch ?—A. I do not know of an American vessel that fishes there 
within the 3-mile limit, that is, with lines. It may be, however, that 
some vessels that came there line-fishing last season set nets in there 
for the purpose of getting bait. I think it is quite likely that some of 
them have done so; I know that our weir fishermen supply most of the 
vessels with bait. We sell them bait out of our weirs; we open an 
account with them when they come there. “ 

Q. Your experience, in this regard, dates back to 1845, and you have 
been weir-fishing all this time?—A Yes, principally. 

Q. And you know something about the Grand Manan fisheries ?—A. 


Yes. 
159 F 


~ 2530 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


 Q. Then state. what portion of the fishery within the 3-mile limit 

‘there is carried on by Americans; give the value of the whole fishery, 
and say what proportion of the $500,000 is taken by Americans.—A. No 
part of that estimate, $500,000, is caught by Americans. This relates 
to what has been taken by our people on Grand Manan; it covers the 
whole ground. 

Q. And you say that the Americans do not carry on any fishery there 
within 3 miles of the shore?—A. Yes; but some American vessels fish 
off on the Banks. The value of the fish of all kinds taken annually 
within the limits off Grand Manan is $500,000; but no fish are taken 
there, to my knowledge, by American fishermen, in boats or vessels. 

Q. What is the population of Grand Manan?—A. Mr. Lorimer, in his 
history of Grand Manan, issued last year, gives it at about 2,400 or 
2,500. 

G: Do you know much of the opposite side of the coast—Letite and 
Lepreau, St. Andrew’s and Deer Island, &c.?—A. No, not a great deal, 
to my personal knowledge. 


Q. Are you not obliged to know something about the fishery on that — 
coast, in connection with the management of your own business?—A. ~ 
We learn what they are doing over there, and we secure reports in this © 
regard. For instance, if herring are caught there we naturally make ~ 
inquiries concerning their quality and quantity and such matters, and — 


as to how many are being put up, because we are interested in that 
branch of the business; but if I hear about the line-fishing carried on 
there, I am not so immediately interested in that department, and I do 
not care so much about it. 

Q. How does the herring fishery on that coast compare with the her- 
ring fishery of Grand Manan Island ?—A. Their line-fishing is more ex- 


tensive than ours, but their smoked-herring business is not so extensive — 


as ours; they do not smoke as many herring as we do—at least I under- 
stand not, but I donot know that this is the case from my own personal 
knowledge. They, however, make line and net fishing more of a 
specialty than do our island people, and they probably in winter net 
more herring for what is called the trozen-herring business. 

Q. Is the fishery carried on there of greater or less value than the 
Grand Manan fishery ?—A. I do not think that there is a great deal of 
difference between the two. At iecast, I should not think so. The 
extent of our smoked-herring business would very nearly offset what 
they do more than our vessels in other branches, and I would not sup- 
pose there would be any very great material difference between these 
two fisheries. 

Q. From your experience what do you suppose is the value of the 


whole fisheries carried on from Grand Manan Island up to and along” 


the whole of Charlotte County ?—A. I would not like to estimate it at 
more than $2,000,000. 

Q. That is for the whole fishery as mentioned ?—A. Yes, I should say 
it was overestimated at $2,000,000. I should think that one and three- 
quarter millions of dollars would be the full extent of its value. 

Q. On that shore or up around Grand Manan do you believe it possi- 
ble from anything you have seen that there is an American fishery 
carried on there, and an American catch taken there, independent 
altogether of the people of Grand Manan, and of the inhabitants of the 
opposite from Letite of equal value with the British catch ?—A. No. 


Q. Or that if the value of the British catch there is a million, the value ; 
of the American catch there is also a million, and perhaps more ?—A. I~ 


| # 


] 


\' 
t 
. 
n 
a 
£ 


2 


~ 4 , ‘ 
a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . . 2531 


am confident that nothing of the kind is the case. I give this as my 
honest opinion. 

Q. You say you have been dealing in the smoked-herring business for 
along time. Would that business stand an additional tax of 5 cents in 
gold per box, which is the amount of the old duty 7—A. No, it could 
not, this year in particular. 

Q. Why ?—A. We are only getting this year, in the American mar- | 
ket, 15 cents a box for our best quality of herring, after they are shipped. 

Q. Would not the customer have to pay the duty 7—A. I think not. 

Q. Why not?—A. My experience is to the contrary. I cannot so 
understand it. 

Q. Explain why you think so 7—A, I will tell you how the matter has 
worked in my experience. I have shipped direct in my own vessel from 
Grand Manan to Boston smoked herring with other kinds of fish when 
there was an average duty of 5 cents in gold a box on smoked herring, 
and I have sold those herring alongside of a man from Lubec who was 
also selling herring. Mine were equally as good, or if not better than 
his, and the reputation of Grand Manan herring stands higher than 
that of Quoddy herring, as is known by everybody who knows anything 
about it, because we have a better quality of fish. I have sold my her- 
ring in the Boston market alongside of Lubec herring, and for the same 
price which the latter obtained, while I also paid 5 cents a box in gold 
duty at the Boston custom-house. I once took a cargo of about 7,000 
boxes there in the schooner Belle, and I left $350 in gold at the Boston 
custom-house, and if the consumer paid the duty I paid it also; and so 
I came home minus $350 in gold, which, if no duty had been imposed 
on Canadian fish, I would have had in my pocket. 

Q. If the captain from Lubec had gone there with the same cargo, 
obtaining the same price, he would have come away with these $350 in 
his pocket 7—A. Certainly he would; that is clear. 

Q. You thus lost $350 ?—A. I did really lose it. 

Q. In other words, without reference to duty you had in the American 
market to take the price which the American fisherman got there 7—A. 
I had to sell my fish at the same price which he got; the dealer could 
pay me no more than he paid him, for my herring were no better than 
his, and he could not afford to pay me any more for them, as he could 
get what he wanted from American fishermen ; so 1 was obliged to sell 
at the same price. ; 

Q. You do not believe that the herring fishery could stand the addi- 
tion mentioned ?—A. It could not. It really could not. We were pre- 
viously driven out of the business of shipping fish to the Boston mar- 
ket—this is the truth of it—until the renewal of reciprocity. 

By Mr. Thomson : 


Q. Did you ever reflect as to whether the imposition of a 5 cents duty 
on your fish did not raise by so much the price of the fish, so that you 


got to that extent a higher price for your fish ?—A. I think this is not 


the case. It could not do so. The $350 were taken out of my pocket 
in this way: they had a sufficient quantity of fish in the American 
market, which was kept supplied with all that was required at acertain . 
rice. 
Q. What price did you get in that particular instance ?—A. I do not 
remember. 

_Q. Suppose that fish had been in such demand in the market that 
you got 20 cents more for them than you actually did receive, and that 
the Lubec man also obtained 20 cents more; do you think that you would 
have been paying the duty ?—A. Certainly I would. 


2532 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. The American fishermen want the duty back on fish, I suppose ?— 
A. I do not know about that, Iam sure; but they naturally would wish 
to have it back again, I suppose, in order to exclude our fish from their 
market. 

Q. I suppose that the consumer got his fish cheaper, owing to the 
removal of the duty and the admission of your fish into the American 
market ?—A. The consumer would then get his fish cheaper—the more 
fish that are put on the market the cheaper the consumer gets them. 

Q. Do you think that the effect of the duty would be to keep you out 
altogether ?—A. It would exclude us. 

Q. In that particular case did you lose money ?—A. QO, I certainly 
did; that is, I lost money in this way: if my fish were as good—and 
they were so, of course—as those of my neighbor at Lubec, and if he 
sold his fish at 30 cents a box, and paid no duty, while I sold mine at 30 
cents a box and paid 5 cents gold duty per box, [look upon it in this light, 
that I lost 5 cents in gold per box, which I would not have lost if I had 
operated on the American side. Besides there was quite a premium on 
gold at the time, and it cost me more to get my fish to the American 
market than it did the American to whom | refer. 

Q. We will grant, for the sake of argument, that you did lose.—A. 
I understand that I did lose money, certainly. 

Q. Do you mean that you really lost money ?—A. I lost it in the sense 
I have mentioned. 

Q. And otherwise, did you make money ?—A. I certainly have made 
money in the smoked-herring business. 

Q. But did you lose money on that particular transaction 7—A. O, I 
really did make money on that transaction; that is clear; that is to say 
I made over and above a living, and I call that making money ; but I 
would have made more woney if it had not been for the duty. 

Q. Would you have made any more with the duty off, if the price of 
herring then fell 5 cents per box all round in the American market ?— 
A. Certainly I would not; that is clear. 

Q. The duty had rather the effect of putting money into the pocket 
of the Lubec fishermen than of taking it out of yours?—A, I think not; 
I do not see it in that light. 

Q. On that particular transaction, at any rate, you made money ?— | 
A. I got over and above a living. 5} 

Q. Why, then, did you say that you would be driven out of the Amer- — 
ican market?—A. I say this would be the case if a prohibitory duty 
were put on. 3 

Q. Of course; but do you say that the imposition of a five cents duty 
would do so?—A. At the present time, with present prices of fish, that — 
would do it; we could not then operate in the American market, and — 
we could not make a living. | 

Q. Do you not think that the imposition of a five cents duty would 
raise the price five cents more in the American market ?—A. No. * 

Q. Why not?—A. I do not see any reason why that should be the 
case, because our fish are not wanted in the American market. Our 
fish go into that market as a surplus. 

Q. Then the result of this treaty is that the Americans get their fish 
a great deal cheaper than was the case before?—A. There are times 
when smoked herring are very plentiful on the American side, and then 
herring run low in price. 

Q. Is not the result of the treaty, which admits your fish into the 
American market on equal terms with the American fish, to make the 
price of fish lower in that market ?—A. It has that tendency evidently. 


a 

$: 
> 

= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2533 


Q. Therefore the consumer gets his fish for less money ?—A. Evi- 
dently he does. When herring are abundant the price is lower. 

Q. It further follows that although a certain class of fishermen may 
lose something by this free admission of British fish into the American 
market, the American public gain by it?—A. By getting their fish at a 
low price? Of course it makes the price of fish lower in that market. 
That is clear. 

Q. Then the consumer gets the fish cheaper ?—A. He evidently does ; 
the larger the quantity that is put on the market the less the price will 
be. 

Q. You state that the annual value of the Grand Manan fisheries is 
from $500,000 to $600,000, but according to the figures which you gave 
Mr. Trescot such annual Vv -alue amounted in all to only $153,000; will 
you explain how you account for the difference?—A. That is for the 
body of the fish, apart from the value of the oil and sounds. 

Q. What is the value of the sounds 7—A. It would take some time to 
figure that up. 

Q. Would it amount to $50,000 ?—A. No. 

Q. Would anything else be worth $50,000? You see that all these 
figures do not make $200,000; now where do you get your $500,000 or 
$600,000 ?—A. I said I did not believe that it would exceed that, and I 
do not think that it will come up to that amount. 

Q. Is not $500,000 and $600,000 a mere random guess on your part 7— 
A. I have no figures by which I know that it is correct. 

Q. The figures you have mentioned only bring such value up to 
$153,000, leaving a difference of about $450,000 between that and 
$600,000; the fact is that you have not made any accurate calculation 
about this at all?—A. I have not; no. 

Q. Do you know Walter McLaughlin, of Grand Manan Island?—A., 
Yes. s 
Q. He is a respectable man, is he not ?—A. Yes; he has the reputa- 
tion of it. 

Q. And he is a truthful man ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You know that his business as fishery warden is to find out actu- 
ally what the catch is, and I suppose that you will not put your judg- 
ment, in this respect, against his?—A. Well, that would depend on cir- 
cumstances. 

Q. Would you put your judgment as to the catch of Grand Manan 
against his, when it is his business to find dut what it really is?—A. 
No; I do not think that I would. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Lord, of Deer Island?—A. I do not, save from 
reputation. » 

Q. He has the reputation of being a straightforward man, has he 
not ?—A. I never heard anything to the contrary. 

Q. Do you know James McLean, of Black Bay?—A. Yes; I am well 


acquainted with him. 


_Q. He is a very respectable man 7?—A. He is. 
Q. And a truthful man, as far as you are aware ?—A. He is; yes. 
Q. As to the main-shore fisheries, of course you would not put your 


opinion against that of Mr. McLean ?—A. No; not with peypect: to some 


things. 

Q. Surely you would not put your opinion as to the mamnland fisher- 
ies against that of a man engaged in them, and who lives there?—A. 
When I speak from personal knowledge of anything, and if in this Mr. 


| McLean’s opinion differed from mine, I would give Mr. McLean credit 


for being truthful, and for not desiring to misrepresent the matter ; but, 


2534 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


at the same time, I would not submit to his judgment in such regard 
as being better than and superior to my own. 

Q. No doubt; but with respect to matters about which you héve no 
personal knowledge you would not put your judgment, founded on mere 
hearsay, against that of Mr. McLean ?—A. Certainly not. 


No. 56. 


SYLVANUS SMITH, outfitter and vessel-owner, Gloucester, Mass., was 
called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn, and ex- 
amined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. You have always lived in Gloucester, I believe ?—Auswer. 
I formerly resided in Lockport, the adjoining town. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. I am 48. 

Q. You began life as a fisherman ?—A. Yes; I was very young when 
I first went fishing. 

Q. When did you first come to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 
1848. 

Q. Did you then come as sharesman?—A. Yes. 

Q. In what vessel 7?—A. The schooner Juniatta. 

Q. How long was your trip and how many barrels did you take ?— 
A. We were 3 months on the voyage, and we took 300 barrels, to the 
best of my recollection. I have no record of that trip. 

Q. When did you next go to the gulf fishing ?—A. In 1851. 

Q. In what schooner ?—A. The Wave. 

Q. As sharesman ?—A. Yes. 

(. How long were you on the trip ?—A. Two and a half months. 

Q. How many barrels did you take 7?—A. 280 barrels. 

Q. Did you go fishing to the gulf m 1852, and, if so, in what ca- 
pacity ?—A. I did; I went as master. 

Q. In what vessel 7—A. The R. C. Parsons. 

Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. About 80 tons, carpenters’ measure- 
ment. 

Q. How many men were on board of her ?—A,. About 12, I think. 

Q. During how many years were you fishing successively in the R. 
C. Parsons !—A. Four. 

Q. In what vessel did ypu next go ?—A. The E. C. Smith. 

Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. About 105 or 110, I think. 

(. How many men were on board of her ?—A. 17. 

Q. During how many years were you in her ?—A. 5, I think. 

Q. In what schooner did you next go?—A. The Kit Carson. 

@. What was the number of men on board ?—A. 19. 

Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. 145, or thereabouts. 

Q. Ilow many years were you on her ?—A. 4, I think. 

Q@. Which was the last year when you were in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence as a fisherman ?—A. 1864. 

Q. In preparing yourself to give testimony here, have you looked at 
your books to ascertain the catches that were made on the different 
vessels in which you were?—A. Yes; I have carefully examined my 
books and found these different catches. 

Q.*Have you the catchesof all these years ?— \. Yes, one excepted ; 
and I have the stock of that year, but not the number of barrels which 
were then taken. 

Q. You were 13 years in suecession as skipper in the Gulf of St. Law- 


——— se 


¥ 
ane 


Theta 
, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2535 


rence fishing for mackerel, and the last year you were there for that 
purpose was in 1864?—A, Yes. 

Q.@fave you prepared a statement giving the results of your fishing 
those years ?—A. I have. 

Q. Is this a copy of it ?—A. It is. 

q. And that is correct 7?—A. It is. 

«. What was your share as sharesinan on the Juniatta, in 1848 7—A. 
It was $64; it might have been some few cents over. 

Q. Where were your fish chiefly taken that year?—A. We then fished 
on Banks Orphan and Bradley, and what we call the Pigeon Hill 
ground, which lies off the west shore of New Brunswick, between North 
Cape and Point Miscou. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. How long were you on that trip?—A. Three months. 
By Mr. Foster: 


Q. How long were you on the trip which you made into the gulf in 
the Wave in 1851 ?—A. Two anda half months. 

Q. What was your catch ?—A. 280 barrels. 

Q. What was your share ?—A. $88.69. 

Q. Where did you fish that year ?—A. On Banks Orphan and Brad- 
ley and some at the Magdalen Islands. We, however, caught the most 
of them on Bank Bradley. 

Q. Give the catches for the various years when yoa were skipper, 
with the names of the schooners ?—A. In 1852 I came into the bay in 
the R. C. Parsons; was 2 months on the voyage, and caught 100 barrels. 
In 1853 I was 34 months on the voyage, and took 120 barrels. In 1854 
I made two trips, and took 180 barrels on the one and 120 barrels on 
the other; was about 2 months on each voyage. In1855 I made 2 trips, 
_ and was gone about 43 months, but I have no account of the number of 
barrels which we caught that year; we stocked, however, $2,967.56 as 

the result. 

Q. The year previously, when you took 300 barrels, what did your 
stock amount oe ?7—A. The two stocks, as taken from my books, 
amounted to $2,937.56. 

Q. What was ont average price of mackerel that year ?—A. $9.90. 

Q. For the following year, for which you could not find the number of 
barrels caught though you have given the stock for that year accu- 

rately, as you do not know the number of barrels, you do not know 
what was the average price that year ?—A. No. 

Q. Will you tell the Commission what was your fishing ground dur- 
ing the years when you were in the R. C. Parsons ?—A. Well, I fished 
on the Pigeon Hill ground and on Banks Orphan and Bradley most of 

the years that I was on that vessel, and I fished some in October on the 
Cape Breton shore. 

Q. How far from the land did you fish off the Pigeon Hills ?—A. Some 
18 or 20 miles, I think, and along there. . 

Q. You have fished off the Cape Breton shore while you were in = 
R. C. Parsons 7—A. Yes. 

Q. I want you particularly to describe where you fished off that shor e, 
and-how near the land you did so, making your statement in as much 
detail as possible.—A. Well, the first year in which the R. C. Paysons 
came down there, we left home along about the middle of September, 
and we fished for a portion of the year at the Magdalen Islands, and 
towards the last of the trip in October we fished some around Margaree 
Island and Mabou. 


2536 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


® Q. How near to the shore did you fish off Cape Breton?—A. Well, 
we fished sometimes within a mile or 14 miles of the shore, at 
other times we fished 4 or 5 miles from the shore. There were little 
banks off there, and we sometimes fished on them, 7 or 8 miles from 
the shore. 

Q. Off where ?—A. Off from the shore of Margaree Island. 

Q. Have you names for these little banks ?—A. No; but we know 
the soundings there and we often resorted to that place to fish. 

Q. If you are able to estimate at all the quantity of mackerel which 
_ you caught within 3 miles of the shore off Margaree Island, or any- 
where about the Cape Breton coast, I would like to have you tell us 
all you can about it. We are confining ourselves to the trips made on 
the R. C. Parsons ?—A. I think that the first season we got 100 barrels, 
and I think that one-half of that trifle was caught within the 3-mile 
limit, around Margaree, in what we call Broad Cove. 

Q. Now take your second year.—A. In 1853 we only made one trip 
and we fished up around the Banks. I think we went home earlier 
than usual that year. We caught some mackerel on that side, but I do 
not recollect what quantity. We did not, however, get many that year 
on that shore. 

Q. What portion of these 120 barrels, in your judgment, was taken 
within 3 miles of the shore that year?—A. We might have caught a 
dozen. barrels, or about that quantity, but I could not state it precisely 
now. 

Q. The following year, in the R. C. Parsons, you made two trips and 
got 300 hundred barrels; where did you catch them?—A. Mostly on 
Orphan Bank and the Pigeon Hill ground, I believe. 

Q. How late were you in the bay that year?—A. I think that we 
went out of it in the latter part of October; but I have not the exact 
date. 

Q. Did you fish at all in 1854 within 3 miles of the shore anywhere 
that you remember ?—A. Well, we might have tried for some fish in the 
lower part of the bay on the last trip when we were going home. 

Q. What‘do you mean by the lower part of the bay ?—A. The part 
down towards Port Hood. We sometimes fished off East Point. About 
half way across was a bank on which we fished sometimes. We also 
apne from that over to the Cape Breton shore. Vessels resorted there 
to fish. iy 

Q. You have no record of the number of barrels you took the last 
year you were in the R. C. Parsons, though you have the amount of that 
year’s stock; can you tell where you fished that year?—A. Well, I 
fished mostly over the same ground as previously; during a part of that 
year I fished at the Magdalen Islands. : 

Q. Give us the length of the trip and the number of barrels per trip 
which you caught while you were on the E. C. Smith ?—A. We were 
54 months out in 1856, that first year I was in her; we went in early, 
aud we made two trips, which are put down as one in the statement. 
We caught 600 barrels on the two trips—about 300 barrels each trip. 

Q. I see that you have not earried out the stock for that year ?—A. I 
could not find it. 

Q. Do you remember where you finished that year ?—A. I fished on 
sank Orphan and caught some mackerel, about 50 barrels, in the Bay 
of Chaleurs, on that trip, I think. ' 

Q. How far were you up the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. This was above 
Port Daniel, off Paspebiac. We caught some fish up there during one 
or two days. 


$8.40. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.  2bsF 


Q. Within what distance from the shore?—A. We were off in the 
“—:. the bay. 1 could not give the exact distance. 

. Do you remember at all the width of the Bay of Chaleurs at that 
point ?—A. No; but [I should think that it was some 7 or 8 miles. 

Q. Were you ever in the Bay of Chaleurs during any other year ?— 
A. I have been in there for a harbor frequently. 

Q. Where ?—A. At Shippegan and Port Daniel. 

@. Have you ever fished there, that year excepted 7—A. No; that 
was the only year when I caught any fish there. 

Q. Did you at any other time try to fish there?—A. No; Ido not © 
know but that we might have done so when in a harbor, but I do not 
recollect of having tried there; that is the only year when I ever caught 
any fish in the Bay of Chaleurs to amount to anything. 

@. What was the result of your fishing the second year you were in 
the E. C. Smith ?—A. We then caught 625 barrels; that was in 1857. 

Q. How long were you out ?—A. 54 months. We went out in the 
very first of the season, and we staid the season through. I went 
away about the Ist of June or the last of May, and came out of the bay 
in the last part of the season. 

Q. In November ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What was the result of your fishing in 1853?—A, We then caught 
550 barrels. 

Q. What renath of time were you out ?—A. During those years when 
I was exclusively fishing for mackerel we went into the bay in the 
very first part of the season. 

Q. You have the stock for 1858; what was the average price per 
barrel that year ?—A. $9.44. The stock amounted to $5,200. 

Q. Did you send any fish home that year ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Did you do so in 1858?—A. Well, [ did not ship any home; I did 
not land any to ship. 

Q. You brought the whole of the 550 barrels back with you?—A. One 
year I shipped some with two of my brothers—100 barrels with one, and 
180 barrels, I think, with both. I took them out in the bay, and I do 
not know bunt 1858 was that year. 

Q. You transshipped them from one schooner to another in the bay ?— 
A. They took them on board there and I took their supplies; that was 
the first of my shipping mackerel home. 

Q. You think that may be the year, but you do not know 2—A. I am 
not certain about it, but I think that is the year. 

Q. What did you "do in 1859?—A. I caught then 250 barrels. 

Q. In what length of time?—A. We were 5 months on that trip. 

: Q. What did you do in 1860?—A. I was out 4 months and caught 220 
arrels. 

Q. What did they stock at?—A. $1,805.08; the average stock was 


Q. The next schooner you were in was the Kit Carson; what did you 
do in her?—A. In 1861, in the Kit Carson, I made a 44 months’ trip. I 
caught 520 barrels, and the average price was $4.43; stock, $2,303.02. 

Q. = long were you in the Guilt of St. Lawrence i in 1862 1A, Five 
months 

Q. What did you cateh ?—A. Six hundred and four barrels. 

Q. Have you a memorandum concerning this trip?—A. I have no 
memorandum of the precise trip, but. I have the number of barrels we 


then caught, as taken from my pass-book, kept on the wharf; it is what 


we call the tally-book. I have no memorandum concerning the precise . 
Stock for that year. 


2538 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What did you do in 1863?—A. I then went two trips; was out 53 
months; caught 1,003 barrels; average price, $9.07; stock, $9,101.8 

- Q. And 1864?—A. I then made one trip; was out for 5} montis ; 

caught 1,126 barrels; average price, $10.75; stock, $12,104.82. 

Q. Were all the prices which you have given for 1862, 1863, and 1864 
American currency prices ?—A. Yes. 

Q. 1864 was your last year in the Galf of St. Lawrence?—A. Yes, as 
skipper of a vessel. - 

@. And during the two last years you were there you shipped home 
mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. How ?—A. By packet from the Strait of Canso. 

Q. What did you pay ?—A. $1 a barrel freight to Gloucester; that 
was in currency. 

Q. In what way did you ship mackerel home in 1864, and what did 
this cost you ?—A. By packet; and I think it cost the same for freight, 
but I am not sure of that. 

Q. During the 13 years you acted as skipper, I believe you caught 
6,018 barrels of mackerel, and your average catch per year was 469 bar- 
rels ?—A. I have not figured that up. 

Q. Did anybody ever sail out of Gloucester who was more successful 
than yourself in catching mackerel 7—A. Well, they all said that I got 
a pretty large share. 

Q. Without showing any modesty about it, did anybody catch as 
many as yourself ?—A. I think not. 

Q. Was Andrew Leighton as near you as any one ?—A. I think that 
for the number of times I was fishing I got more than he did; but then 
some years he was longer in the bay than I was, and got as many as I 
did, if not a few more. 

Q. You stocked over 1,100 barrels in 1864?—A. Yes. 

Q. What did you do afterwards ?—A. I went into the fishing busi- 
ness, and fitted out vessels. 

Q. What was the style of the firm in which you first were 7?—A. 
Rowe and Smith. 

Q. How long were you in it ?—A. Three years. 

Q. This was in 1865, 1866, and 1867 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the name of your present firm?—A. Smith & Gott. I 
went into this firm in 1868. : 

Q. What has been you business in this firm 7—A. I was in the. same 
business as previously—the cod and mackerel: business. We are fish- 
buyers and we ship fish to the West. 

Q. I have a statement respecting your mackerel business in the firm 
of Smith & Gott, both on the United States shore and in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence, but you have not given me a statement of your business during 
the years when you were in the first firm; why did you not do so ?—A. 
When I came away I had only 2 or 3 days to look over my old books, 
and I did not have access to the old books of the other firm for the pur- 
pose. 

Q. You have a statement made up from the books of your presenti 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2439 


firm from 1863 to the present time; is this a copy of that statement 7— 
A. Hes; ; it is as follows: 


Bay-trips from 1868 to 1876, inclusive. Shore-trips from 1868 to 1876, inclusive. 
No. of | No. of barrels| Average No. of | No. of barrels| Average 
Year. vessels, | of mackerel. | prise Year. vessels. | of mackerel. | price. 

5 625 $16 00 5 1, 961 $11 87 

7 1, 097 16 00 2 1,140 8 75 

vi 1, 038 13 00 5 1, 852 8 61 

5 i 418 8 00 2 1,174 9 70 

3 7 14 00 3 1, 494 9 22 

6 2, 291 9 2 4 1, 889 13 93 

7 2) 6 00 5 3, 704 8 20 

3 623 11 33 6 2, 531 9 81 

3 319 10 30 4 3, 642 5 20 

Total ...... 46| 10,995 36 19, 387 

Number of barrels of shore mackerel packed from 1868 to 1876 .....--- 19, 387 
Number of barrels of bay mackerel packed from 1868 to 1876........-. 10, 995 
Value of shore mackerel..........-..-. Peas ccs cat obec snattescces $176, 993 00 
Value of bay mackerel ...--.. 32-6. scum enekes es ccce See eee aes 111, 699 00 


The following table contains a statement of the trips I made in the 
bay from 1848 to 1864, inclusive: 


Length of | _No. of | 


Year. | Name of vessel. trip. acerala: 
3 months... 300 | Shareman’s share, $64. : 


24 months. 230 | Shareman’s share, $88.69. 
2 months.. 100 
33 months. 120 


aks meae i Stocked, $2,937.56. Average price, $9.90. 
43 months.|........ Two trips ; stock, $2,967.56. 

54 months. 600 

Bee eee 625 

prs 50 UO" sca ee 550 | Stock, $5,200. Average price, $9.44. 

5 months. 250 

4 months. . 220 | Stock, $1,850. Average price, $8.40. 


44 months 520 | Stock, $82,303.02. Average price, $4.43, 
-| 6 months. - 604 
53 months.} 1,003 | Stock, $9,101.87. Average price, $9.07. 
ie esa 1,126 | Stock, $12,104.82. 


Sharesman from 1848 to 1851; captain from 1852 to 1864. 
Th \irteen years captain, 6, 018 barrels. Average per year, 469. 


: WEDNESDAY, October 10, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


The examination of SYLVANUS SMITH was resumed. 
By Mr. Foster: 


Question. Will you state where you caught your mackerel from year 
to year while you were in the E.C.Smith ?—Answer. In 1856 we made two 
trips; the first was caught on Bank Orphan, with the exception of about 
50 barrels, as near as I can judge, which were taken in the Bay of 
Chaleurs, and the second trip was caught at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Whereabonts did you catch the fish in the Bay of Chaleurs ?—A. 
Up off Paspebiac, I think, or along there. We were up in that section 
of the bay. 

Q. How near the shore were you?—A. We were in the middle of the 
‘Bay of Chaleurs; it would be hard to judge the distance, but we were 
some 4 or 5 miles off shore. 


2540 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How wide is the bay there 7?—A. I do not recollect exactly, but I 
think it is some 10 miles; that is, if my recollection is correct. Itis some 
time since I was there. 

Q. Where did you cateh your mackerelin 1857 ?—A. On Banks Orphan 
and Bradley and at the Magdalen Islands; and along in the fall, about 
the time we went home, we fished towards the Cape Breton shore. 

Q. Did you fish off the Cape Breton shore ?—A. I do not recollect of 
catching many mackerel there in 1857, but we then took a few off Mabou, 
I think; we might have caught 50 barrels or so off that shore that year, 
but as to this I have to depend on my memory. 

(. When did you go towards the Cape Breton shore ?—A. could not 
tell you now just the time, but we usually got there by the 10th or the 
15th of October. 

Q. What harbor did you make there?—A. Port Hood usually. 

@. Where did you catch your mackerel in 1858?—A. We fished during 
the early part of the season on what we call the Pigeon Hill ground 
and on Bank Orphan; and after September we went to the Magdalen 
Islands. 

Q. Did you fish off the Cape Breton shore in 1858 on your way home ?— 
_A. Weare almost always in the last part of the season—because the 
weather then becomes blowy—down about that way for a spell; I think 
we caught some there that year, though [ cannot recollect exactly, but 
I would not set the quantity at over 50 barrels. 

Q. How long did you stay in the vicinity of Port Hood whither it was 
your habit in the autumn, while on your way home from the fishing 
grounds, to go ?—A. We generally made Port Hood our harbor when 
there in bad weather; we would sometimes goin there when it was 
stormy, and then afterwards go out to grounds some distance off to fish ; 
we generally made that our harbor for about two weeks in the last part 
of the season. 

Q. You have described generally your fishing grounds for the rest of 
the season ; and now explain at what different points in the vicinity of 
Port Hood you used to fish 7—A. We sometimes tried along the Mar- 
garee shore; and if we did not find anything there, we would then go 
off to the Magdalen Islands, or fish half way across between the Cape 
Breton shore and the Magdalen Islands, where there are good fishing 
grounds. We used to try there, as it used to bea very good fishing 
ground. 

Q. This was half way across between Margaree Island and the Mag- 
dalen Islands 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What fishing ground is situated there 7—A. I do not know of any 
particular bank there, but we find that it is on the route by which the 
mackerel come down the bay from the north; they are often met with 
there, and when they do not strike the shore, good fishing is to be had 
in that quarter. 

Q. Did you fish closer to the shore off Margaree Islands than else- 
where?—A. Wedid; sometimes we fished there within two miles of the 
shore and sometitnes four or five miles off. 

Q. In 1859, you caught 250 barrels in five months; where were they 
taken ?—A. We had a very hard year that year, and we picked our fish 
up so slowly, that I can hardly call to mind where we got them. Dur- 
ing five months we filled up the small number of barrels. mentioned, and 
we fished mostly at the Magdalen Islands, though we may have caught 
some few elsewhere; but still I cannot — to mind any particularly 
definite amount in this regard. é' 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. == = 2541 


Q. Did you get any large catches at any place that season?—A. No; 
we were a long time in the bay, and we only got a few mackerel. 

Q. What do you call a large day’s catch ?—A. 30, 40, or 50 barrels ; 
most always a catch of that kind will remain in my ‘mind pretty well; 
but I am not so likely to remember small catches. 

Q. What is the biggest catch which you ever made in a day 7—A. 120 
barrels, I think. 

Q. When was this ?—A. In 1864. 

Q. Where abouts were they taken ?—A. Broad off the Magdalen 
Islands. 

q. In 1860 you caught 220 barrels in four months; where were they 
taken ?—A. We fished at the Magdalen Islands the most of that year. 

Q. Did you try that autumn off the Cape Breton shore ?—A. We most 
always tried there ; but I do not recollect eatching any fish that year 
off the Cape Breton shore. It was a very poor year down there. 

Q. What is the largest number of barrels you remember taking in a 
day near Margaree Island?—A. I caught 100 barrels during one day on 
that shore the last time I fished there. 

Q. Was this within the three-mile limit ?—A. I think a portion of them 
was caught there; during the fore part of the day we were within three 
mniles of the shore. " 

Q. Of the island or mainland ?—A. We were within three miles of 
Mabou ; the barrels in question were wash-barrels, not sea-barrels, and 
100 wash-barrels would pack out about 75 sea-barrels, probably. 

Q. Is there a difference of one-quarter between wash-barrels and what 
they pack out ?—A. I should judge that 100 wash-barrels would be 
about 75 sea-barrels. 

Q. And what is the difference between sea-barrels and what they 
pack out at home ?—A. It is usually one-tenth, and sometimes a little 
more. 

Q. In 1861 you were in the Kit Carson, and in 45 months took 520 
barrels; where did you catch them ?—A. We fished that year around 
the Magdalen Islands during the whole season. 

Q. Did you fish at all that year around Prince Edward Island ?—A. 
I never fished there to get any mackerel. I have tried, but I never got 
fish there. 

Q. Did you try there that year ?—A. I might have tried some as I 
passed along, but I never fished there much any way. 

Q. Did you fish the first year you were in the Kit Carson near Port 
Hood, off the Cape Breton shore ?—A. We fished some off that shore, 
between Port Hood and Cape George during the last part of the season. 

Q. Where is Cape George ?—A. Between Port Hood and Prince Ed- 
ward Island, about half way across. 

Q. You now mention anotherfishing ground ; what is it called ?—A, 
Fisherman’s Bank ; it lies half way between Souris and Cape George. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 
Q. Do you refer, when speaking of Mabou, to Mabou River or to Cape 
Mabou ?—A. I mean Cape Mabou, a high bluff at the entrance of Broad 
- Cove, east of Port Hood and of Mabou River. 


“By Mr. Foster: 
Q. Did you fish at the mouth of Mabou River ?—A. ‘I never saw any 
one fish there. 
Q. The second year you were in the Kit Carson you caught 604 barrels; 
where were they taken ?—A. All the years I was in her I fished invari- 


2542 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ably at the Magdalen Islands, except for a short time at the last part 
of the season, when we fished down about the Cape Breton shore. 

Q. Then, sha!l we understand that during all the years you were in 
the Kit Carson your exclusive fishing ground was in the vicinity of the 
Magdalen Islands except late in the autumn ?—A. While on that ves- 
sel I never fished anywhere else, that is, to catch any fish of any account, 
except late in the autumn, when almost every year I caught some mack- 
erel about the Cape Breton shore; not always inshore, but sometimes 
close inshore, and at other times, perhaps, some distance off; and then 
we would make Port Hood our harbor in bad weather. 

Q. You speak of never having caught any fish off Prince Edward 
Island when in your last two vessels, part of which you owned, I think, 
the E. C. Smith and the Kit Carson 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Those were large vessels?—A. Yes. ' 

@. Did you ever fish in those vessels within three miles of the shore 
and catch any fish off Prince Edward Island ?—A. Ineverdid. I might 
have hove to and caught a few scattered fish there, but I never caught 
enough to detain us there. 

@. Were you in the habit of resorting to harbors on the north side of 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. I was never in those harbors with those 
vessels, save two or three times at Malpeque while in the first one. 

Q. During the years of your fishing experience, what is the largest 
number of United States fishing-vessels that you have seen together at 
one time, so far as you can judge ?—A. Well, I do not know exactly, 
but I should think I have seen 200 together at one time. 

Q. Where ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. What is the largest number of United States fishing-vessels, ac- 
cording to your best information, that was ever in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence in any one year fishing—speaking from what you have personally 
observed, and what you ,have learned from others 7?—A. I never took 
the matter much into consideration, but there may have been at times, 
perhaps, 400 such vessels in the bay. I have, however, no definite 
knowledge on the subject. 

Q. What is the greatest number of vessels of all descriptions that you 
ever knew to be there ?—A. There was quite a large fleet of provincial 
vessels there at one time, besides; I should think that their number 
was 100 or 150. 

Q. When was this ?—A. I do not recollect the exact year, but I can 
refer back to the vessel in which I was then to help my memory a little. 
1 should think that this was somewhere in 1855 or 1856, or along there. 

Q. When you fished, did you usually fish with the greater part of the 
Gloucester fishing fleet? How many was the largest number of Glou- 
cester fishing-vessels that was ever there in one year, in your judg- 
ment ?—A. I can answer that merely by guess-work, having no statis- 
tics to guide me; and I could not tell the number. 

Q. Were you usually fishing with the Gloucester fleet ?—A. During 
the last 5 or 6 years that I fished in the bay, I fished in company of 
the greater part of the Gloucester fleet. 

Q. What, then, was the chief fishing ground of the Gloucester fleet 
ous the last few years that you were fishing ?—A. The Magdalen 

slands. 

Q. Have you any means of knowing how many of the Gloucester fleet 
were fishing at the Magdalen Islands at the time of the gale in August, 
1873, when a good many went ashore there ?—A. I do not know the™ 
number, but the largest part of the fleet was then there, I think; my 
own vessels in particular were all there. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ; Vet a 


(). How many vessels did you then have there 7—A. Five or six, I 
think. 

Q. It has been stated that 28 Gloucester vessels then went aground.” 
at the Magdalen Islands; how many of your vessels then went 
aground ?—A, One. 

Q. One out of five or six ?—A. Yes; and the captain got her afloat in 
a couple of days, 

q. Can you tell how many Gloucester fishing-vessels are in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence this year ?—A. I cannot. 

Q. Nor last year?—A. I could do so only as regards my own. 

@. How many had you there last year ?—A. Three; and I have two 
there this year. 

Q. And how many the year before last 7—A. Three. 

Q. During the last 10 years that you fished in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence, you had the right, under the Reciprocity Treaty, to fish anywhere 
in the bay; how, then, did it happen that you did not fish much during 
this period within three miles of the shore in British waters 7—A. Well, 
we fished where we could find the most fish, and I suppose that the 
most fish were on the grounds on ‘which we fished. 

Q. Have you the result of your trips made to the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence and on the American shore since your fishing firm was organized 
in 1868 7—A. I have them made up. 

Q. How many vessels did you have in the gulf in 1868?7—A. Five; 
we landed 625 barrels; average price, $16. 

@. The whole five vessels only caught 625 barrels?—A. Yes. 
| @. How many vessels did you have that year on our shore?—A. Five. 

@. How many barrels did they land?—A. One thousand nine hun- 
dred and sixty-one; average price, $11.87. 

. How many vessels did you have in-the gulf in 1869 ?—A. Seven; 
they landed 1,097 barrels; average price, $16. : 

Q. How many did you have on the American shore ?—A. Two; they 
landed 1,140 barrels; average price, $8.75. 

Q. How many vessels did you have in the gulf in 1870 ?—A. Seven; 
they landed 1,038 barrels ; average price, $13. 
| @. And how many on our shore?—A. Five; they landed 1,852 bar- 
| rels ; average price, $8.61. . 

Q. And in 1871?—A. We then had five vessels in the bay; they 
landed 1,413 barrels; average price, $8. 
=,  Q. How many had you on our shore?—A. Two; they landed 1,174 
barrels ; average price, $9.70. 

Q. And in 1872?—A. Wethen had three vessels in the bay and three 
on our shore; the former landed 789 barrels, average price, $14; and 
the latter 1,494 barrels, average price, $9.22. 

Q. And in 1873?7—A. We then had six vessels in the bay and four 
on our shore; the former landed 2,291 barrels, average price, $9.25 ; 
and the latter 1,889 barrels, average price, $13.93. 

Q. And in.1874?—A. We then had seven vessels in the bay and five 
off our shore ; the former landed 2,800 barrels, average price, $6; and 
the latter 704 barrels, average price, $8.20. 

_Q. And in 1875?—A. We then had three vessels in the bay and six 
on our shore ; the former landed 623 barrels, average price, $11.33; and 
the latter 2,531 barrels, average price, $9.81. : 

Q. And in 1876 ?—A. We then had three vessels in the bay and four 

-on our shore; the former landed 319 barrels, average price, $10.20; and 
the latter 3,642 barrels, average price, $5.80. 

. Q. How does the result of those years sum up?—A, The average 


2544 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


catch in the bay per vessel during these ten years was 239 barrels, and 
such average on our shore was 5384 barrels; the result of the stock of 
the vessels which fished on our shore exceeded that of those which 
fished in the bay by $65,299. 

Q. I notice that since your fishing firm was organized the mackerel 
which have been taken on the United States shore have not brought so 
much by the barrel as the bay mackerel; will you explain the reason 
for this ?—A. In the early part of the year the catch of our vessels was 
quite large and prices then run low, while the mackerel caught then are 
small and of poor quality, so that though the average number of barrels 
taken on our shore is larger, the price realized has been smaller on the 
average. 

(). Compare the prices of the shore and bay mackerel for the months 
extending from the time when fishing usually begins in the bay—from 
June out to the end of the season.—A. Our bay fishing commences 
about the 1st of July, and I have only the figures for the whole catch. 

Q. I only want to know whether the shore or the bay mackerel would 
sell at the higher price during those months?—A. Our shore ones 
fetch the most money. 

Q. Suppose that you can catch mackerel on the United States shore 
at the same time that you do so in the bay, and then compare the 
prices of these mackerel caught from that date onward; would the 
shore mackerel be more or less in price than the bay mackerel 7?—A. 
Well, I do not know that I could answer that question; I have never 
figured it up, and I have no statistics to guide me to a conclusion re- 
specting it. 


Q. How many vessels have you in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this 


year ?—A. Two. 

Q. What are their names?—A. The Etta Gott and the Margie Smith. 

Q. What has been the resuit of their voyages ?—A. The Etta Gott 
has landed and shipped home 220 barrels, caught at the Magdalen 
Islands and Bird Rocks. 

Q. How do you know where they were caught ?—A. From what the 
captain has written me, and what my brother, who was in the vessel 
and who came home, has told me. 

Q. Did the Etta Gott go seining?—A. No, she went with hooks and 
lines. A ipaid 

Q. How was it with the other vessel ?—A. She went out on the same 
day aud carried a seine. I heard from her a day or two before I came 
away, and she then had 60 barrels. 

Q. Do you know where she had been fishing ?—A. Yes; around 
Prince Edward Island. 

Q. How do you know that?—A. From letters which were frequently 
sent me. - 

Q. During how many years have you been in the habit-of using a 
seine on the United States shore ?—A. Some 10 years. 

(). And has a large part of the mackerel which has been caught on 
that shore during the time that your present firm has existed been 
taken with seines ?—A. The largest part has been so taken. 

Q. Have you prior to this year tried seiving in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence?—A. No. 

Q. Have you known seining to be successful there ?—A. I never knew 
any one to make a voyage by seining there. 

Q. Do you know any reasons why seining has not succeeded in the 
Gulf-of St. Lawrence ?—A. One cause is due to the shallowness of the 
water in it; and then the mackerel do not seem to school or play on the 


NS ee ee 


— 
y 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2545 


surface of the water there as they do on our coast; these are the two 
chief reasons for it. Besides, the bottom in the gulf is of such a character 
that it does not well admit of seining; the seines are torn in it, and it 
has been found very difficult on that account. I never saw mackerel 
rise to the surface there anywhere else than around Prince Edward 
Island, where I have so seen some close in around the shore in the surf; 
but I have never seen mackerel rise to the surface around the Magdalen 
Islands. 

Q. And you cannot seine them unless they do rise to the surface ?— 
A. You have got to have them school on the surface of the water before 
you can so inclose them. 

Q. When you are fishing generally and throwing bait over, do you 
not see them in the same way ?—A. They then rise and come up along- 
side of the vessel, but they do not usually seine them in that way, but 
when they see the fish coming along in schouls, they go out in boats 
and cast their seines around these schools. 

Q. Why can you not seine them when you throw out bait and thus 
raise schools ?—A. They usually do not seine them that way. 

Q. You do not know whether it could be done or not?—A. O, yes; 
it has been tried and sometimes a few are caught that way; but not 
enough to make a business of it. 

Q. Where were the best mackerel found in the gulf during the years 
when you were a fisherman ?—A. I always found the best at the Mag- 
dalen Islands. 

Q. What did you regard as the safest fishing-ground in the bay 7—A. 
The Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because you can make a lee there with the wind in any 
direction. 

Q. Since you gave up fishing yourself, you have, of course, no per- 
sonal knowledge as to the particular places where your vessels and other 
Gloucester vessels have gone to; but have you any means of knowing 
their usual fishing-grounds?—A. Yes; by talking with the captains 
when they come home. 

Q. Have you been in the habit of making inquiries on this subject ?— 
A. I mostly talk the matter over with them, and ask where they have 
taken their voyage. This is mostly our first inquiry. 

Q. Where have your vessels chiefly fished ?—A. At the Magdalen 
Islands, in the bay, though in one case in particular some sixty barrels 
were once taken toward the last of the trip between Souris and Cape 
George; but that is the only instance which I recollect. 

Q. Do you-regard the fishing-grounds within three miles of the shore 
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as of much or of little value ?—A. I never 
considered them to be of any great value. 

Q. How is it that the boats can do well fishing inshore when the ves- 
sels cannot do so?—A. Well, one man might go out and catch a few 


- fish along shore; but if a vessel did so, when they came to divide the 


proceeds among the crew it would not pay them to stop there; one or 
two men might take a barrel of surf-mackerel in a day, and it would be 
a good day’s work for them, though that would not pay 17 men. 
Q. How much bait have you ever thrown over in a day in the Kit 
Carson, the largest vessel in which you fished ?—A. I have thrown 6 
barrels over in one day. : 
Q. How much did it cost a barrel ?—A. It would average $5 or $6; 
however, on some days we would throw over but little bait. 
- Q. How deep do you think the water must be to enable a school of 
mackerel to be raised and to afford a good day’s fishing 7—A. Well, I 


160 F 


2546 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


could not say that there is any rule for that. The fish often are on the 
Banks when, perhaps, they may not be found in very shoal places in any 
quantity, but still some mackerel might be there. 

Q. I notice that you had some vessels in the gulf in 1866 and 1867, 
when licenses were taken out. You have not examined the record ot 
your business for those years, I believe?—A. No. I had only access to 
my own books, and the books containing that information were in the 
possession of another concern. 

Q. How many vessels did you have in the gulf in 1866 ?—A. Six-or 
seven, I think, but I could not give the number exactly. 

Q. If the figures that are given me are correct, you must have had 
more than that; I will name them over. Was the Winged Arrow one 
of the vessels you had in the gulf that year?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the Eureka another ?—A. She was owned by the master, but 
was fitted out by us. 

Q. Was the Ada L. Harris another ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the Arequipa another ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Had you the A. J. Franklin also there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the Bridget Ann ?—A. She was owned by the master, but 
. fitted out by us. 

Q. And the Northerner?—A. Yes. 


Q. And the Alferetta?—A. Yes; the captain, however, owned part 


of her. 

Q. And the Colonel Ellsworth 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Several of these were owned by you and the rest you fitted out ?— 
A, VOR, 

Q. These vessels are put down as having taken out licenses in 1866 ; 
who paid for these licenses, and how were these payments charged ?— 
A. My impression is that they were charged to the stock of the vessels. 

Q. So that one-half of their cost was paid by the men?—A. That is 
my impression. 

Q. Explain why you took out licenses in 1866, when it was the habit 
of your vessels to fish at the places you have mentiuned.—A. Well, we 
thought it was better for the vessels to take out licenses to avoid any 
liability of seizure which they might incur and to save them from pos- 
sible annoyance. : 

Q. When you were in the bay before the Reciprocity Treaty, did you 
observe any cutters there?—A. O, yes; frequently. I saw them and 
was boarded by them. 

Q. But your vessel was never seized ?—A. No; but I was threatened 
with seizure. 

Q. Why ?—A. I was once up in the Bay of Chaleurs; we were in 
a harbor during a storm, and on coming out the officer of a cutter 
boarded our vessel and other vessels, for quite a fleet had run down 
there, and he used pretty violent language. He said that he would 
seize my vessel if he caught her in there again, and he indorsed a paper 
stating that the vessel had been boarded. 

Q. In what harbor had you been ?—A. Shippegan. 

Q. Had you been fishing in the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. No. 

Q. What had the other vessels which were with you been doing ?—A. 
All of them, 40 or 50 in number, [ should think, went in for a harbor. 

Q. Did you hear of vessels being seized for curing mackerel inshore 
that they had caught off shore ?—A. I heard such a report on the fishing- 
grounds; but that is not to my present knowledge. 

Q. Did you hear of commanders of cutters levying contributions on 
some masters of fishing-vessels, compelling them to give from 5 to 10 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2547. 


and 20 barrels of mackerel, under pain of capture on refusal to do so ?— 
A. I heard that this was the case; that was the common report among 
the fishermen in the bay at the time; but I have no personal knowledge 
in this regard, : 

Q. I have read from the 487th page of Sabine’s report, which gives 
the details, although it does noi mention any name.—A. I think that 
the master of the vessel that did so was Captain Darby. 

Q. Those statements were believed by the American fishermen to be 
true, whether this was the case or not?—A. We believed the stories, 
but I cannot say whether they were true or not. 

Q. In 1867, the license-fee was raised to $1 a ton, and then three ves- 
sels connected with your firm apparently took out licenses. Was the 
Altona your vessel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And also the Winged Arrow and Alferetta ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You do not remember whether they took out licenses or not 7—A. 
No, I conld not tell. 

Q. Who, had charge of the books of your first firm ?—A. We had a 
bookkeeper, Mr. Jordan, who was also one of the partners. 

Q. Did you take out any licenses-in 1868 7?—A. I think not; I do not 
know that we did so, but I would state, as chief owner of the vessels of 
the firm, that I did not wish them to take out licenses that year; still I 
do not say that in some instances they might [not] have been taken, 
though I instructed the captains not to do so. ; 

(. Can you tell the result of the voyages of your vessels on the Ameri- 
can shore this year ?—A. No, I have no statistics in this connection. 

Q. How many vessels have you had engaged in mackerel-fishing this 
year on our shore ?—A. Only two. : 

@. You do not know whether they have done well or poorly ?—A. They 

* have done very well lately, but in midsummer they did not do much. 

They have, however, made very good catches during the last four weeks. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel do you think that a schooner must 

' take in a trip in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in order to make the result 

| profitable to the owner ?—A. Our best vessels are of about 75 tons; and 

one of them must take not less than 400 barrels, or between that num- 

ber and 500, to make any kind of a paying voyage. 

Q. During what length of time?—A. The season; a four months’ 

trip. , 
Q. This is astatement of the expenses connected with such a voy- 
.age?—A. Yes; it is a statement of a suppositious fishing-voyage made 
up with the bills that would be necessary for sach a trip to the Gulf of 
Saint Lawrence. It is based on the price which mackerel brought the 
day I came away from home and for which bay trips then sold. 

Q. And on what catch is it based ?—A. A catch of 400 barrels. 

Q. Explain the items.—A. The vessel would land 200 barrels No. 1 
mackerel, worth $16 a barrel, making $3,200; 100 barrels No. 2, worth 
| $10 a barrel, making $1,000; and 100 barrels No. 3, worth $6 a barrel, 
| Making $600. This is about the way in which such a trip would pack 
out—half ones, one-quarter twos, and one-quarter threes. : 

Q. You have given the actual prices of such mackerel ?—A. Yes; the 
| prices which ruled the day I left home. . 

Q. That is without the charge of packing out ?—A. Yes. 

| Q. What would be the result of the voyage ?—A. $4,800 would be the 
| Value of the gross stocks. : 

_Q. Show what the crew and captain would respectively get.—A. The 
| bills against the voyage, based on actual prices, are 40 barrels of porgy 
| bait, worth $6 a barrel, making $240. I bought some bait a few days 


- 2548 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


before I left home at $6. Forty barrels would not be a large amount 
for such a vessel. Then there would be 10 barrels of salt clams, worth 
$8 a barrel, making $80. That would not be a large quautity of clams 
for such a vessel on a 4 months’ trip. 

Q. It is a fair supply of bait?—A. Yes. The expenses per barrel and 
for packing 400 barrels of mackerel, at $1.75 a barrel, would amount to 
$700. That is the actual present charge this season for packing, as 
made by all the firms. 

Q. It includes the price of the barrels?—A. Yes. The stock charges 
would hence amount to $1,020, and the net stock would consequently be 
$3,780, the crew’s half amounting to $1,890; and this, divided among 16 
hands, which number would be necessary on a vessel of that size, would 
leave $118.12 for each man. 

Q. At what figure do you estimate the tonnage of the vessel 7?—A. 70, 
new measurement. 

Q. Have you not got two more men than is usual ?—A. No; that is 
about a fair average crew for a vessel of that description. | 

Q. Is it economical and does it show good judgment to have 16 men 
on such a vessel ?—A. That would be about all the men that could stand 
alongside of each other and fish conveniently. 

Q. And such a vessel would accommodate that many ?—A. Yes; 
about. The charterer of the vessel would pay the expeuses of the voy- 
age; and provisions and fuel, &c., for 16 men for 4 months wouid cost 40 
cents a day per man, amounting in all to $700. We find by looking over 
our accounts last season that this was the usual cost in this regard— 
40 cents a day for each man. Then there are 120 barrels of salt to cure 
the mackerel; it is worth $1 a barrel, making $120. 

Q. Is that the actual price of Liverpool salt now ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And that is the right quantity of salt for such a vessel ?—A. I 
consider so. <A bait-mill would cost $15, and fishing gear $50. 

Q. How long does a bait-mill last 7—A. Two years, I suppose. 

Q. Then out of that $15 you might save $7.502?—A. Yes; withrepairs 
such a mill might last two years. 

Q. What is to be done with a bait-mill to keep it in order ?—A. The 
teeth get out very frequently, and the mill has to be taken apart and 
teeth inserted. Besides, there are some little charges connected with 
the clearing of the vessel, such as 8 cents per hogshead of salt for weigh- 
ing-fees, &c., which amount to about 315. 

Q. You have given the price of salt in bond ?—A. Yes; we also find 
in fitting out vessels that we have to buy some fresh provisious in the 
bay, which cost from $50 to $100, and I have put down as the disburse- 
ment for that purpose during the voyage $60. 

Q. That is in excess of the 40 cents a day already mentione 1 ?—A. 
Yes. ° 

Q. I suppose that in the course of a four months’ trip the health of 
the crew requires a supply of fresh vegetables, &c.?—A. They have to 
have fresh vegetables, potatoes, &c., which they cannot always carry 
with them on the voyage. I allow $250 a month for the charter of the 
schooner, making for the four months $1,000. 

Q. Is $250 a month a fair price for the charter of such a schooner ?— 
A. That is about the usual price for a vessel of that size going to the 
Banks. 

‘ Q. What do you estimate such a vessel to be worth ?—A. $7,000 or 
7,500. 

Q. Is that a high price for a Gloucester mackerel-fishing vessel of that 

size 7—A. It is not. 


| 
| 
| 
| 
' 
| 


| 


——- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2549 


- Q. Could one be built for less now ?—A. I think not. I had a vessel 
of that size built last spring, and she cost me more money—she cost 
some $7,500, or more. 

~Q. Proceed with your statement.—A. I put down as insurance on the 
charter and outfits, including barrels, $104.20, which is based on 4 per 
cent. for the voyage; the rate we charge in our office for a voyage of that 
kind. 

Q. You charge 4 per cent. for 4 months ?—A. Yes. 

Q. For how much do you insure with these $104.20?7—A. A little 
short of $3,000. 

Q. Would it not be about $2,500 ?—A. I guess it would. 

@. What is embraced in the policy of $2,500? It does not cover the 
value of the hull of the vessel?—A. No; but it includes the material 
put on board of her for her voyage. ; 

Q. And how much do these expenses sum up ?—A. $2,215.40. 

Q. Is that a fair policy to take by the charterer of the vessel ?—A. Yes; 
I consider that it is. 

Q. Is it a large or small estimate 7—A. It is not a large one; it only 
covers the actual outfit and charter for which he is liable to pay, whether 
the vessel returns or not. 

Q. The charter of the vessel is to be paid for whether she is lost or 
not ?—A. This is the case up to the time when she is lost. 

Q. Proceed to the nextitem ?—A. The charterer’s expenses amount to 
$2,215.40; his half of the stock with which he has to pay these expenses ~ 
is $1,890, and this shows a loss of $325.40. 

Q. So that if a man had a vessel and paid $1,000 for her for four 
months, and got 400 barrels of mackerel, he would gain nothing for his 
time, but lose money?—A. Yes; and there are some other expenses 
which I did not read ; there is the master’s commission of 4 per cent. on 
the net stock, $3,780, and that amounts to $151.20. 

Q. That is in addition to his share?—A. Yes. 

Q. Suppose that a man owned his own vessel, which was new, having 
cost $7,000, what would be a fair percentage to charge for depreciation 
right along from year to year ?—A. I have made it up, and put it down 
at $300, as a fair amount for depreciation for a voyage of four months. 

Q. How much would that be by the year ?—A. If we take it for a 
series of years, perhaps it would not be so much in proportion ; perhaps 
$700 might be a fair depreciation for a number of years. This statement 
which I have prepared.is as follows: 


= NEW SCHOONER, CHARTERED. TONNAGE, 70 TONS. 
For four months’ mackerel-fishing in Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1877. 
STOCK CHARGES. 


SUSY ry TMHY $6. ou.s0 0 <c cicone ddan aoe a haas essen agensboces, $240 00 


NDIA: DELO SS ..-65: <5 chino rddliteh boc ccc uscccne cunt qihens cscs 80 00 
Expense for barrels and packing 400, at $1.75...... cs tbdawas Tapa haemo ees: 700 00. 
SEC OREELOR xiic.s sic sas padced anenss eames Siisssstldies ied aueamlnie es 1, 020 00 


OUTFITS AND EXPENSES, 


Provisions, fuel, &c., for 16 men, 4 months, at 40 cents per day each......... $700 00 
EE SEMIORMO Eo aba se wauerdacs dniyacs os anciwlo de oahpcm Uke = 58 120 00 
ECM diigcat $50 25... ... success spaces cansescocccesccdscnapace - 65 00 

stom-house and port charges... ... sande -cidecsscccder senvee sncmin davect 15 00 
Bresh provisions bought in bay ............2. eceeccesecececcnccecetecss. 60°00 


— 


2550 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Charteriof schooner; 4:nonths; at: $200.52. <ciese- sec co case e cee scsece se 1,000 00 
Insurance on charter and outfits, including with above—barrels $400, and bait 
$320—$2 605, at Ai percent, -2S220.0S locus seec- eas tee eee soo eeee eee 104 20 
Skippership or master’s commission on net stock $3,730, at 4 per cent...-... 151 20 
Total expense account, without interest. )...<.. 525. 25.02 sees ola sce 2,215 40 
CATCH. 
200 bbls: of No: mackerel ati SlGsses- se acon ee cc oes coe eae $3, 200 00 
100 bbis: of: Now eimaeckerel: “atv$l0-8 3 25-- ewereem cee cee sce te ences 1,000 00 
100-bbis;:o£: No: 3:mackerel:'at| $622.5 42 sees steeen sce sccw see nace ces ecucee 600 00 
Groes/ stock 222 seco ak. wens cece cscs tenes teee he peo aceenee 4,800 00 
ess stock: (charges cae a> 3-4 swat ee eceetaceaes cece maeuibes clazewoesecees 1,020 00 
Net SHOCK oe een cee secieeeees cs sees ees elisne crews cee ed eeeoes 3,780 00 
Amount of charterer’s' half..0. .2- 322 .2---36 SAR ee RNR, ON EL: 1,890 00 
Amount OL Grew Siliaifsc: cio sso0 bee das Roiepe.sie Sse st wee hone asics ea ouise 1, 890 00 
otal netistock 1. <6 ewe sec ees casan coeeeee scicee kde oteeee ee 3,780 00 
Crow’s s balla essa a ara oe eee Seen eee nee aco eae 1, 890 00 
Average share.(16: hands): ::25s% 522 s2.52</csse0ses.seec Ltd wisouic iasidceeciastee nts 118 12 
Chartorers:/GxpOUSed 1. Sconces co ncse a2 eo eats howe eceee cc ae sone ene 2,215 40 
Charterer’s receipts) c..5 27.5. 2220 cas sisa sa teas oeccjeces sees ciletiessocenen sees 1,890 00 
Loss, without 4 months’ interest on outfits ...............-220 cece cenececeee 325 40 
Dr. . VESSEL’S ACCOUNT. Cr. 
1877. To insurance on $7,000, four By. charter.<c2::ss2- .21s5 cencas 17000100 


months, at 4 percent. $280 00 
Taxes on $6,000, four 

months, at $18 per 

thousand 22.2.5... 36 00 
Interest on $7,000, four 

months, at 7 per cent. 

Per aNNUAN <2 55/10 163 33 
Depreciation on vessel, 

four months ......... 300 00 


Gain on charter........ 220 67 


1,000 00 ; 1,000 00 


Q. Would 10 per cent. per annum be a fair charge for depreciation on 
a fishing-vessel 7—A. I think so; it would be under rather than over 
actual depreciation during that time. 

Q. Suppose a man owned a vessel and engaged in business with her, 
or chartered her, during how many months in the year can he expect to 
earn money with her; can he so earn during the whole twelve of the 
months ?—A. She will have to be laid up for three or four months in the 
year, sometimes longer or not so long; but, speaking generally, this will 
be the case for four months. 

Q. Then a vessel that is chartered would not earn charter-money for 
more than nine months in a year ?—A. This would not be the case for 
over nine months and perhaps it would for less than that. 

Q. Chartered at the rate of $250, a vessel would earn $2,250 a year. 
What insurance would the owner have to pay to cover him on a vessel 
worth $7,000 for nine months in the year, while under charter ?—A. 
About 7 per cent., I think. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2551 


Q. For nine months ?—A. Yes 

Q. For how much would he insure the vessel ?—A. For seven- -eighths 
of her actual value, I think. 

Q. What would be the taxes levied in Gloucester on a vessel costing 
$7,000 ?—A. Somewhere about $36, 1 think. Do you mean for the whole 

ear? 
4 Q. Yes; I want to see how the owner who puts $7,000 in money into 
a vessel comes out. What percentage of the policy ‘of insurance must 
he lose in order to recover value under the policy ?—A. About 12 per 
cent. on a vessel of that description. As a vessel grows older the rate 
is niaeer, and then it ranges from 12 to 20 per cent. on sails and rig- 
ing 
P Q. That is the amount on the vessel which cannot be underwritten ?— 
A. There has to be that amount taken off before the company holds 
itself responsible. 

Q. Do your policies cover the value of cables and rigging ?—A. No; 
that is a total loss. 

Q. If the 400 barrels of mackerel were caught in less than four months, 
the figures would be altered and the expenses would be less?—A. Yes. 

Q. How would this be on the whole?—A. It would not be proportion- 
ately less, if outfits were taken for a voyage of that kind; but for a 
short voyage the expenses might be something less. 

Q. How much must mackerel sell for a barrel to make the business a 
successful one for the merchant ?—A. Well, we consider the business to 
be best when the prices are low and the quantity offering large ; such a 
year we consider to be the most favorable. 

Q. Why ?—A. The mackerel are then more evenly distributed; all 
get a portion; and we find that such years make the best years in the 
business. When mackerel are down to $9 or $10 a barrel, we make 
more successful voyages, but when high prices rule, we find that the 
market does not take a large quantity of fish. 

Q. Why not 7?—A. I do not know, save it be because the people won’t 
then eat the fish. 

Q. Who eat the common mackerel; where do these go?—A. A great 
portion of this quality of mackerel goes to the Southwest and West. 

Q. Are these eaten in the New England States?—A. They are used 
there very little, I think. 

Q. Mess mackerel, which is quite expensive, how large a quantity 
_ of that does the market take ?—A. The demand is quite limited. It is 
eaten most on our large seaboard cities. 

Q. Now, at $20, supposing the mackerel are of the best quality, how 
many barrels would be sold in your estimation ?—A. I should judge 
10,000 barrels would be all that could be sold on the market at the price 
of. $20 or upward. 

Q. Have you had any experience in selling mackerel to merchants to 
sell again, with reference to the effect of a high or the low price as to 
the amount that a dealer would take ?—A. I have had considerable ex- 
perience in selling mackerel. 

Q. You sell mackerel to go how far;West.—A. My customers are mostly 
on the New York Central Road to Chicago, Minnesota, some around 
Saint Louis. 

Q. You mentioned to me an instance of a customer who took a con- 
siderable quantity of you at last year’s prices. I wish you would relate 
them to the Commission ?—A. It was in Indiana. Last year he had 
some. During the season he had some 1,000 or 1,200 barrels. 

 Q. aa what price?—A. $7 and $8. 


2552 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Poor mackerel ?—A. Yes. 
Q. What are they selling for this year and what does he do?—A. 


They have been selling for $12 until recently, and then they come down : 


to $10. He has been to my place recently, but he said he didn’t k 
whether he would purchase any. 

Q. Will mackerel be taken for consumption at a price above that of 
other staple articles of equivalent food value?—A. I don’t think they 
will in very large quantities. 

Q. Now, what causes have been in existence interfering with the sale 
of salt mackerel during the past few years?—A. I think there have been 
several causes. One is the facility of carrying our fresh fish into dis- 
tant parts of the country. That has materially interfered with it. 
Then there is the lake herring; during the months of November and 
December until May they are very plenty. They are now used in very 
large quantities all throughout the West. 

Q. What are lake herring ?—A. A species of white fish, I think, only 
smaller. 

Q. What do they sell for per barrel ?—A. This party I referred to, 
speaking of his trade, said that last year he used 30,000 packages. A 
package is a half barrel. 

Q. How are these put up ?—A. Pickled. And he told me they were 
sold at $2 a package. 

Q. You say these have interfered with the constancy of the demand ?— 
A. I think, during the months we used to depend very largely on the 
consumption of our mackerel, the lake herring has been one great cause 
for the decline during these months in the market-value of mackerel. 

Q. As to the increased supply of fresh fish, and the extensive area 
over which it can be distributed, what effect has that ?—A. Well, we 
employ a very large fleet on the Grand Banks and other off-shore Banks 
for halibut, and there have been of late years very large quantities 
taken, and the prices have been very low. They are going to all parts 
of the country, and I think that has had its effect. People will not eat 
salt fish when they can get fresh. 

Q. How far West have you sent any halibut, or do you know of it 
being sent fresh in ice ?—A. I have known instances where one of our 
neighbors receives them up in Montana. I don’t know in what quanti- 
ties. He ships them right direct. 

Q. But as far as Mississippi does the fresh fish in ice got—A. All 
along that section, I think. 

Q. Taking such cities as Cincinnati, Chicago, Saint Louis, to say 
nothing of hundreds of smaller ones ?—A. They are supplied with fresh 
fish in many instances. The cars take them right through. 

Q. Now, I want to ask you something about the herring fishery. How 
extensive is the herring fishery in the waters of the United States ?—A. 
Well, I haven’t any statistics of the herring catch. There are very 
large quantities taken there all along in the months of September and 
ene about six weeks in September and October, all along our 
shores. 

Q. How are they taken ?—A, All in nets. 

Q. What becomes of them ?—A. Generally the largest part are used 
in our Western trade. Last year there was quite a large amount that 
was shipped to Sweden. I don’t know what quantities. I should say 
some seven or eight barks or brigs loaded from Gloucester. 
joe jer they United States fish ?—A. They were packed in Glouces- 

r fresh. 


————E_-----~S- 


. 
' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . .2553 


Q. Where were they from?—A. They were canght around in the 
vicinity of Gloucester and Boston. 

Q. Off the coast of Massachusetts ?—A. Yes, off the coast of Massa- 
chusetts. 

Q. Seven or eight barks you say. How many barrels to a bark ?— 
A. I don’t know what they took. I sawthe vessels there. I can’t say 
precisely the number. I should think they might probably have taken 
5,000 barrels apiece. 

Q. They went to Sweden ?—A. Gottenburg, I believe. 

@. Have your vessels ever fished for herring in British waters or 
have you yourself ?—A. I have been to the Magdalen Islands for her- 
ring. I have never fished there. I have been there for herring. 

Q. How did you get them ?—A. I bought them. 

Q. From whom ?—A. Provincial people. 

Q. What did you do with the herring ?—A. I carried them to Boston 
and used them for smoking purposes, as well as shipped them to the 
West Indies. 

Q. Did you carry them fresh and frozen?—A. No; salted. 

Q. Are they smoked after being salted ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you have anything to do with that Magdalen Island 
herring business ?—A. (Referring to memorandum.) I was there in 1860, 
1861, and 1862, I think. Those are the only years. 

Q. What season?—A. During the month of May. 

Q. Now, have you been to Newfoundland ?—A. I have been there 
seven winters to buy herring. 

Q. Beginning when ?—A. I was there in 1857 the first year. 

Q. Were you connected with Andrew Layton ?—A. I was in company 
with him. We were the first ones to go there from our place for herring. 

Q. Did you ever fish for any herring there?—A. I never did. 

Q. How did you pay for them?—A. Partly with supplies, provisions, 
and the most in specie. 

Q. Did you go prepared to fish for herring 7—A. Never. 

Q. Did you ever know a United States vessel that did ?—A. I never 
heard of them. 

Q. Now, do you know of any catching of herring prosecuted by 
United States vessels in any British waters anywhere?—A. I never 
knew of any. I have known them to go to Labrador in the summer for 
herring—some vessels. 

- Q. What is the price of herring? Give me some idea.—A. The price 

of herring varies very much. Magdalen herring are a very cheap fish, 
usually selling from the vessel at about $1.50 for 228 pounds, the way 
we sell them. 

Q. At Gloucester ?—A. Yes. Our shore herring is selling from the 
boats now, including the barrel, at about $3.00. 

— Q. What is the barrel worth?—A,. Well, we consider it worth about 
a dollar usually. 

_ Q. What would be the effect of a duty of a dollar a barrel on pickled 
herring, or five cents a box on smoked herring, upon the importation 


- of herring from foreign countries—from the Dominion into the United 


States ?—A. It would be prohibitory on the barreled herring, which is 
a cheap herring. I can’t speak of the box herring, for I have no knowl- 
edge of it. 
» Q. Your business relations have brought you into contact with a good 
many of the business men and fishermen of the provinces, I suppose ?— 
A. Very much. I have traded to all parts of the provinces. 

Q. If you have the means of telling either from personal observation 


2554 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


or from information derived from others, I would like to know what was 
the effect upon the provincial fishing interests of the termination of the 
Reciprocity Treaty, that is the impostion of the duty in 1866.—A. I 
have no means of actual knowledge except that 1 have conversed with 
people acquainted with the matter, the merchants of Canso; the people 
I have been intimately acquainted with in this way have said it was 
very disastrous to their business. Thatisall. I had no personal kuowl- 
edge. 

Q. During the continuance of the Reciprocity Treaty were there a 
good many fishing vessels from the provinces engaged in the fishing 
business ?—A. The last year of my fishing in these waters there was 
quite a large fleet from the West Shore, Chester, Lunenburg, aud from 
that down. They built up a very fine fleet of vessels. 

Q. Did they continue in the fishing business after Reciprocity ?7—A. 
I have no personal knowledge only of some that told me this. They 
told me their business had very much rundown. Thatis all the knowl- 
edge I have of it. 

Q. What effect, in your judgment, would the reimposition of similar 
duties have upon the provincial fisheries ?—A. I think the effect would 
be the decline of these fisheries if there was a duty put upon them. 

Q. Then if they ceased to send their fish to the United States, or sent 
them in less quantities, how would the difference in the quantity of fish 
be made up?—A. Well, I think it would naturally stimulate our own 
production. I suppose that would be the tendency. 

Q. The operation of the duty, in your judgment, would be to effect a 
transfer of the business from the Dominion to the United States ?—A. 
I think it would stimulate the business to a greater amount. 

Q. What branch of fishing is the chief industry of Gloucester ?—A. 
The cod fishery. 

Q. What is the proportion, in your judgment, without statistics, of 
the cod fishery to the mackerel fishery 7—A. Well, I can answer for 
myself. Within the last few years we, as curers of fish, cured about 
from 18,000 to 20,000 quintals of codfish in the season. We packed from 
3,000 to 6,000 barrels of mackerel. 

Q. Well, give the proportion of your own business. How much of 
that is codfish, and how much is mackerel? You have givenit in quin- 
tals, give it in fractions. Is the cod fishing twice or three times as 
great ?—A. About $100,000 for the codfishery, and, well, about one-third 
as much for the mackerel fishery. Then we have ‘other branches ; our 
fresh-halibut fishing. 

Q. You are engaged in that fresh-halibut fishing 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What do you do with the fresh halibut ?—A. We sell them to the 
merchants, and they distribute them over the country. 

Q. Where are they caught?—A. Most of them catch them on the edge 
a the Banks in about 200 fathoms, where it falls off towards the Gulf 

tream. 

Q. How near shore to any place have you known of the halibut being 
fished ?—A. 150 miles may be the nearest point. 

Q. These are Banks, but haven’t you known it to be done, or attempted, 
near shore?—A. I have. 

Q. Where have you known them ?—A. On the Labrador coast they 
have caught them large near the shore. I have known them catch them 
in 30 miles or 25 miles, around Cape Sable. I fished there quite a num- 
ber of years—around Seal Island and Brown’s Bank. 

(. How near land there did you ever fish ?—A. I have fished in sight 
of land. I could see it. 


| 
S| 


Oo OO 


| 
| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . . 2555 


Q. Did you ever fish within three miles?—A. No; I don’t think any one 
could fish in there, because it is not a fishing ground. 

Q. You don’t know of any one ?—A. No. 

Q. You told me you had a vessel that strayed up into the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence for halibut. Give me an account of that.—A. I forget the 
year. I could tell by referring to a memorandum. | think it was some- 
where about 1872. I am not precise, ’72 or 773. 

Q. Before the present treaty 7?—A. Yes. ‘ 

Q. A long ora short time before ?—A. I think i it was about the time 
it went into action. 

Q. Well, what was the name of the vessel, and what happened te her?— 
A. He was looking for halibut and trying closeinshore. He didn’t catch 
any. He was seized and carried to Quebec. 

Q. Well, you got your vessel released, and there was no complaint ?— 
A. Yes, we got her released. It was all satisfactory. 

(J. I wanted to know whether you had known, excepting that instance, 
of any halibut fish there?—A. I know that about a week afterwards a 
vessel was doing the same thing up there. Our vessels go prospecting 
around to see where they can find fish, and he was looking for halibut, 
and was taken. 

Q. Did these vessels catch any halibut ?—A. I don’t know of any 
catching any. 

Q. Do you know of any American vessels fishing for halibut in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence?—A. Nowhere, unless north and east of Anti- 
costi—we call it Labrador shore—near Red Island, I think the place is 
called. I have heard of several trips caught there. It is down towards 
Belle Isle. That was some six years ago, I think. Two or three vessels 
eaught parts of trips or their whole trips there. The one I have referred 
to is the only one I ever knew that was catching halibut inshore. 

Q. Do you think the Canadian catch of mackerel that comes into the 
United States market has any perceptible effect upon the price of mack- 
erel in the market?—A. Well, I don’t think it has a great deal. It 
would, perhaps, have some. 

Q. What is it regulates the price principally ?—A. Well, the supply 
and demand would regulate the price up to a certain standard. When 
you get beyond that—I will illustrate it. This season there was a short 
supply of mackerel, and when they got up to acertain point—$12 a bar- 
rel or $14 a barrel—customers would not take them, and they dropped 

-to $12,. when they were bought a little more freely, but they didn’t 
go off, although the quantity was small. When I came away, the mack- 
erel were being taken at $10 quite freely. When they get to a certain 
point they seem to stop the consumption. Buyers say they can’t handle 
them to profit. They say people will not eat them. 

Q. You spoke of $1.75 as being the charge for packing out mackerel 
at Gloucester this year, including the cost of barrels. I want to ask 
you whether, when a mackerel schooner comes to wharf and her fish is 
packed out, she is charged wharfage?—A. No; in no instance do they 
charge wharfage. The mackerel are packed, the barrels found and coop- 
ered, they are salted and branded all at the expense of the packer ; and 
for that he charges $1.75. This is a customary charge throughout the 
town. 

Q. Then the mackerel packer owning the wharf gets his interest on 
the cost of his wharf, his rent for his wharf and buildings, in that 
$1.757—A. Yes. Two years ago it was $2. This year it is $1.75. 

“be But the income for the wharf property comes out of that?—A. 

-e8. 


2556 | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How much would these wharves cost, some of them ?—A. Mine 
cost me $25,000. Some are more expensive than mine, and some less. > 

Q. Have you ever known any cod-fishing vessel go prepared to catch 
mackerel as well as cod, or of any mackerel vessel going prepared to catch 
cod as well as mackerel—mixed trips of that sort ?—A. I never knew of 
any. They might catch a barrel. 

Q. Your Gloucester halibut catchers go as far as Greenland or Iceland 
sometimes ’—A. Not for fresh, but salted halibut. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. You spoke of the cost of your wharf as $25,000 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that an average ?—A. I don’t think that is an average. There 
are some lower and some higher. 

@. Your business premises, I suppose, would in value involve the out- 
lay of a large sum of money besides that ?—A. There is nothing con- 
nected with the business but the wharf. 

Q. You do all your business on the wharf?—A. That ineludes the 
buildings onthe wharf. Our store is just ou the upland. We include 
that as part of our wharf. 

Q. How many vessels are you interested in now 7—A. We own 14. 

Q. As matters go, the world has smiled very favorably on you. 
That is so, is it not ?—A. I have been considered one of the most suc- 
cessful ones at the place. 

Q. What are the vessels worth apiece ?7—A. To-day? It would bea 
very hard question to answer. 

Q. I don’t mean to say if you were to force them upon the market. 
But what do you value them at—$7,000 7?—A. That is one of the new 
ones. Mavy of them have been running some 12 years and have run 
down very materially in value—some down to $1,500. 

Q. You built a new one in April ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. Just one this year. 

Q. What ones have been running 12 years ?—A. Well, we have sev- 
eral of them that have been 12 years and some that have been running 18 
years, 

@. You have of course your premises besides these, where you re- 
side ?—A. I have a place where I live. 

Q. Your partner too, I suppose ?—A. He has not any house. 

Q. I think you said that, in your opinion, the influx of Canadian 
mackerel did not very much affect the markets in the United States. 
Do you say that?—A. Well, not to any great extent. 

Q. I just want to know if you have examined the statistics with the 
view to ascertain what proportion of the whole quantity of mackerel 
consumed in the United States comes from Canada ?—A. I have not. 

Q. Well, it would depend pretty much upon how you found the statis- 
tics what your answer would be ?—A. Well, not with regard to our own 
catch ; the largeness or smallness of our own catch has made the price 
higher or lower more than anything else; I have watched that. 

Q. I quite understand that a large or small catch there would more or 
less affect prices ; but supposing you examined the statistics and found 
that one-third of the mackerel consumed came from Canadian waters, 
would you then say that the importation of that quantity did not materi- 
ally affect the market? I will put it at one-fourth.—A. It would affect 
a up to a certain point; beyond that, I think, the market would not take 
them. 

Q. Well, would not the effect be to reduce the price ; the people would 
take them if they went down low enough, wouldn’t they ?—A. When 
mackerel gets at a low figure there is a great consumption. : 


| 
i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2557 


Q. Would not the influx of a very large quantity of fish materially 
affect the price ?—A. It would not materially affect it at the present 
market rates. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because the prices have got down now to where the 
market will take mackerel; at higher rates it would have effect. 

Q. Do you mean to say that almost any quantity could be consumed 
at the present low prices ?—A. Well, a large quantity. 

Q. Well, [meanany reasonable quantity thatcouldcomein?—A. Well, 
year before last we had a very large catch, and the markets seemed to 
take them. 

Q. Well, I will put my question in another way. Suppose one-quarter 
of the mackerel now supplied were withdrawn from the market, what 
effect would it have as to prices ?7—A. Well, | suppose the price would 
be somewhat higher, but the market would not take them beyond a cer- 
tain point. 

Q. Now, see. Take them at the prices now ruling. Supposing one- 
fourth of the quantity now in the market was withdrawn, would not the 
price of the three fourths remaining naturally and inevitably rise 7—A, 
They would rise some. . 

Q. In consequence of the withdrawal of the one quarter ?7—A. I think 
it would affect it some; not more than 50 cents a barrel; I think it 
would to that amount. 

Q. The reason I ask is that, examining your statistics, I find that the 
price of mackerel rises and falls more thau any other commodity I know 
of, going sometimes from $22 down to $7. Is not that caused chiefly 
by the large quantity brought into the market 7?—A. It is not. If you 
will allow me to illustrate the case, I will take mackerel that sold for 
$22 some years ago, and after months of consumption, without any mack- 
erel coming in, they went down to $6. 

Q. What year was that 7?—A. I will not be’exact. I think about five 
years ago I sold some for $22 in the fali, and afterwards they went for 
$6, and nove came in. 

Q. Are you sure about that ?—A. I am sure. 

Q. How do you know none came in ?—A. I say no new eatch. 

Q. 1 fancy the year you and [ refer to is the same. I will read from 
the annual report of the Chief of Statistics for 1371. I find that No. 1 
mackerel in January were selling for $22 a barrel to $22.50; in February 
the same ; in March the same; in April the same; in May they dropped 
to $18; in June they were $18. That is as the spring catch comes in 
in May and June.—A. There are not many come in May. 


~_Q. Well, in June. I am told they go in April, and I assume that at 


~ latter end of May some would come in.—A. Not many salt fish until 
une. 3 
_ Q. Well, the fresh would be coming in to take the place of the salt.— 
A. I don’t think many. 

Q. Well, I will take June. Some would come in then.—A. The last 
of June. 


_ Q. Very well. Then in July they dropped to $12; in August to $7.— 


A. I think those reports are based on the retail prices that they were 
in the market, not the Gloucester prices. 

Q. Well, I am speaking of the market prices which the mackerel 
bring. I am reading from a statement showing the priees of staple 
articles in the New York market at the beginning of last month.—A. 
Well, the year I refer to I took our wholesale prices. Idon’t know what 
the Washington markets or any of those New York markets might have 
been charging. 


2558 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I selected that year because I thought it was the one you referred 
to.—A. I only knew the year we lost so much money in Gloucester on 
mackerel was when mackerel was high in the fall and low in the spring. 

Q. I ask you this: Can you recall the year 1871 to your mind? That 
was the year of the Washington Treaty. Are you or are you not aware 
that American vessels were admitted to the waters of Prince Edward 
Island ?—A. I have no knowledge about anything of that kind. 

Q. Were not your vessels there?—A. I think I might have heard 
them say that they were. I don’t recollect. 

Q. I find a rather curious coincidence that the price of mackerel fell 
just about that time, and it struck me that the fact of their being al- 
lowed to catch there might have something to do with it?—A. That 
year ? 

Q. I speak of 1871.—A. My vessels don’t show a very large catch 
that year. 

Q. Your vessels, you say, have never fished near Prince Edward 
Island, so that is quite consistent with my theory; but you will ac- 
knowledge, I think, and that is as much as I want, that generally 
speaking the supply regulates the price.—A. To a certain extent. 

Q. To a material extent. Will you go as far as that ?—A. Well, up 
to a certain point. If there was a very small quantity I don’t think the 
market would take them. The trade will not take them beyond a cer- 
tain timit. When the mackerel goes to $14 a barrel, or along there to 
$15, that is our own mackerel, they will not take them. 

Q. They pay $25 for some.—A. That is men that have the money to 
pay, not poor people. 

Q. But there is a class who will pay a large price for the best fish— 
10,000 people you put it at—A. I don’t know exactly. 

Q. Supposing the mackerel caught in colonial waters were excluded, 
would it, or would it not, have any effect upon the price you get for 
your fish? Supposing one-fourth of the quantity consumed in the 
States was excluded, would it have any effect on the price of the other 
three-fourths 7—A. I think some, not much. I think it would stimulate 
our home production. 

_ Q. In what way would it stimulate it? By raising the price, is it 
not ?—A. Well, to a small extent. 

Q. What do you mean by to a small extent ?—A. Well, I think up to 
a certain point the market does not seem to take mackerel when they 
go beyond acertain figure. At $15 and along there the mackerel drags 
hard, even with a small quantity. It was surprising to me this year, 
having mackerel to sell, that I had to look round to find buyers. But. 
when we have large quantities at low prices it seemed to me everybody 
wanted to buy. 

Q. You are speaking of the Gloucester markets ?—A. I have no. 
knowledge of any other market. I find my customers when they get to- 
a certain point will not take them. 

Q. Well, then the effect of the British mackerel coming in is that the 
consumer is able to buy it cheaper than he otherwise would ?—A. Well, 
up to a certain point. The effect would be very small. There is not a. 
large enough quantity. It is our home catch that affects it. 

Q. I am putting what I conceive to be the fact, as I said, that one-. 
fourth of the mackerel consumed comes from the provinces. Would not 
the exclusion of that naturally give you an enhanced price for the other 
three-fourths?—A. Well, I think it would to a certain extent, to a small 
amount, I don’t know how much. 


Q. You made the same statement with regard to herring. I suppose: | 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2559 


your answer would be the same as to that, as it is with regard to the 
mackerel ?—A. I say that a duty up beyond a certain point would make 
them almost worthless. 

Q. It would be prohibitory, you said ?—A. I think it would be on 
cheap herring. 

Q. Would not the price go up ?—A. No. I don’t think the market 
would take them at high figures, not that quality. I don’t think they 
would go beyond $2. | 

Q. Two dollars a barrel is the outside limit they can be sold for. 
Now, if a large quantity comes in from a foreign market, must not the 
price naturally fall well below that outside limit ?—A. Well, I suppose it 
would fall some; when the fish goes down to a low price the market 
seems to take a very large quantity. 

Q. That is just what I say. Now a word or two (before I come to the 
main question) about halibut. Have you been engaged practically in 
catching halibut since the year 1864.2—A. I have not—uot as a fisher- 
man. 

Q. You cannot speak of the places where halibut have been caught 
since that time from practical knowledge ?—A. No. 

Q. Previous,.to 1864 you were engaged. How many seasons were you 
engaged catching halibut ?—A. I think some six or eight. 

Q. When you were then engaged did you go into the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence at all for halibut ?—A. Never. 

Q. Are you aware that there is a halibut-fishery around Anticosti ?— 
A. I never was aware of any. 

Q. Well, the fact that two vessels were seized there while inside try- 
ing to catch would be some evidence that they believed the halibut 
were there ?—A. Well, they look for them every where. 

Q. Don’t you think they must have had reasonable grounds ?—A. I 
don’t think it; they are in the habit of looking everywhere they may be. 

Q. Do you stand by the full meaning of your answer, that you don’t 
think they had reasonable grounds for believing the fish to be there ?—A. 
Well, a man might have reasonable grounds for believing they were in 
the water anywhere. 

Q. Well, we have had evidence that the shores around Anticosti are 
well known as a halibut-ground, and that quantities are taken over at 
Gaspé too. Do you tell me you have never heard of those grounds be- 
ing halibut-grounds ?—A. Not by our vessels catching them there. 

Q. I do not care whether by your vessels or any other ?—A. I never 
lieard them spoken of. 

“Q. What did you mean by answering me “ not by your vessels catch- 
ing them” ?—A. I meant that I never heard them spoken of. 

Q. I wanted to know whether you were aware of persons fishing for 
halibut around those coasts?—A. Never of their catching any. 

Q. I did not ask you that.—A. I have no knowledge of it. 

Q. Have you ever heard from those who have knowledge of the busi- 
+i whether halibut are caught around those coasts ?—A. I can’t say I 

ave. 

Q. Will you say you have not?—A. I don’t know; I might have heard 
Some one say they caught halibut there. 

Q. Your evidence is that those two vessels, in your belief, went there 
Without any previous knowledge that it was a halibut-ground, on pure, 
mere speculation ?—A. Certainly. We had vessels this year that went 
into three hundred fathoms of water, when they had no evidence of fish 
being there. They went there and tried. They had never any knowl- 
edge, or any one else. 


2560 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I dare say; but here are vessels going in and rendering themselves 
liable to seizure, being, in fact, actually seized there ; and you say they 
went to those places on pure speculation, without any previous kuowl- 
edge ?—A. Well, there was not any fish there, because it proved there 
were not any there. 

Q. You heard of one halibut ?—A. Well, I might have. 

Q. Who was the lucky fellow ?—A. I did not say there was one. I 
might have heard of somebody catching a halibut. I can’t say about 
that. 

Q. Now, when you were prosecuting that branch of the fisheries, where 
were you accustomed to go ?—A. To the George’s Bank mostly ; some 
on Brown’s Bank—that is off Cape Sable and on the Seal Island ground. 

Q. There is a difference between Cape Sable and Sable Island 7—A. 
Yes. 

Q. I want to ask you whether you fished off Cape Sable or the island ? 
—A. Cape Sable. 

Q. I wish you would go to the map, because there is a little discrep- 
ancy between your statement and that of a gentleman here before. 

(Witness goes with counsel to map.) 

Q. (Pointing to Sable Island.) Was it near Sable Island 7—A. No; 
I never fished there. I fished at Seal Island and Tusket Light. 

Q. Was it toward that direction 7?—A. I fished all the way around. 

Q. Do you know a harbor there called Lobster Harbor 7—A. I don’t. 
I never was in there much. 

Q, Perhaps you never tried in close around Cape Sable Island at 
all?—A. Never within eight or ten miles. Probably I have tried in 
eight or ten miles. 

Q. You never tried in within three miles there for balibut 7?—A. No. 

Q. Of course, then, you don’t know about it. We have some evi- 
dence that there have been fish caught in there, and as you have never 
tried you won’t, of course, contradict it?—A. No; I will not. 

Q. You don’t know anything about it. Now, you submitted a state- 
ment, and I understand it to be not the result of an actual voyage, but 
just a statement made up out of your own head as to what you think 
would be the probable result of a voyage ?—A. I have had a good 
many years’ experience, and I take that as a supposed voyage. It is 
not an actual voyage. 

Q. It is a mere fancy statement. I don’t mean in any improper sense. 


It is not made as the result of any actual voyage. And you show a. 


loss on the catch of 400 barrels of some $325 to the charterer. Now, I 


remember when you were giving evidence and Mr. Foster asked you — 


what number of barrels should be taken to make a fair and paying 
voyage, you happened to say the very same number which you show 
by this account to have resulted in a loss.—A. I said 400 or 500 barrels. 

Q. You said 400 barrels, if I remember ?—A. I didn’t say 400 barrels, 
did I? 

@. I understood you so ?—A. I think I said 400 or 500. 

Q. I think you began by saying 400. Then you said generally from 
400 to 500?7—A. Well, between these two figures would be the number 
of barrels that would make a paying voyage. 

Q. Now, if $325 were lost upon 400 barrels caught, how do yeu 
reconcile the two statements ?—A. It is made up by the charter of the 
vessel. My answer was on the vessel that was not chartered, but run 
by the owners; and the result there shows that the owner did make 
some $220, - 

Q. You mean to say the owner would make, whereas the charterer 


I 
| 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2561 


would lose ?—A. Asa practical man of business I consider all these 
charges as charges that would be fair and just in making up the account. 
I make out that he would be a loser. 

Q. That isif he chartered ?—A. The party who owned the vessel would 
make money out of the charter. 

Q. He would make the charter, whatever it was; he would make the 
value of the charter, less the wear and tear of the vessel, less interest 
and taxes. But do I understand you to say that the owner of a vessel 
sending her to the bay would make a. fair profit on 400 or 500 barrels, 
whereas the charterer would lose? Then there must be some particular 
branch in which the owner makes a profit, which the charterer has no 
advantage of 7—A. In that case I have given, if the owner ran the ves- 
sel himself on that voyage, and got 400 barrels, he would not be much 
ofa loser. If he got an advance on that, and was the charterer himself, 
he would have something left out of the voyage. 

Q. Must not he have the same expenses as a charterer would have ?— 
A. Well, if he had an increased number of barrels he would make. 

Q. But with the same number of barrels and these expenses he would 
not make anything ?—A. He would get the interest on his money; he 
would earn that. The interest and taxes have gone into that account. 

Q. Well, you prove conclusively by this account that a man who 
catches 400 barrels loses $325.—A. If he is a charterer. 

Q. And if he is the owner he makes; now, where does the difference 
lie ?—A. If he is the owner he does not make. 

Q. I will see, now, if I can solve that difficulty, although I am only a 
tyro in the business. You give certain charges here that are made 
against the voyage; 40 barrels of pogie bait, $240, and 10 barrels of 
clams, $80. That would have to be paid by the men who fitted her 
out. Expenses for barrels and packing 400, at $1.75, $700. Now, is 
there not a very fair profit made out of that branch of the business ?—A. 
That is not in connection with the vessel; that is with the business. 

Q. There is a handsome profit 7—A. There is a: profit. 

Q. Could that business exist if the vessel didn’t go on the voyage to 
bring the business ?—A. Well, it is part of the business. . 

Q. Is it not a necessary incident which could not occur without the 
vessel going ?—A. Of course you have to have the vessel to get the 
business. 

Q. Then I understand you to agree that there is a handsome profit 


_made upon that? And you have provisions, fuel, &c., for 16 men, four 
| months, at 40 cents per day each, $700. It struck me you pat that very 
_ high. What provisions do you supply them ?—A. I cannot give you all 


the items. on 
~Q. How many barrels of flour, for instance ?—A. Well, that isnot my 
rtment, but we put aboard about 14 barrels of flour, 12 or 14. 

‘Q. You were so many years in the gulf that you must have known 
how many barrels you were accustomed to take. You can give the 
Commission very near the exact quantity ?—A. I can give you the 
quantity of large articles like flour and beef, but I could not give you 
the little articles. ; 

Q. It struck me as being very high—A. I would say in regard to 
that, that that is based on actual figures taken on our vessels year after 
year. We have made up accounts to see what it costs per‘man. _We 
judge 40 cents is about what-it costs a day for board. a 

Q. That forty cents a day is made up and based upon the prices which 
you charge the vessel for these goods ?—A. Yes. , 

Q. Is there not a handsome profit made out of these?—A. We con- 
161 F 


2562 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


sider if we have an outside vessel where the captain owns her himself 
that we make on this fitting about $75. 

Q. Do you know what percentage that is? It is 10 per cent.—A. 
Well, we make up bis account and settle with the crew. 

Q. I am not complaining that it is exorbitant. I think it is very rea- 
sonable and fair paying business. Now there are 120 barrels of Liver- 
pool salt, $120. Do you mean to say you pay $1 a barrel for Liverpool 
salt in bond. (I understood you to say that was taken out of bond.) 
We can buy Liverpool salt in Prince Edward Island cheaper than that.— 
A. Well, your vessels fetch it out as ballast. 

Q. But does Liverpool salt in bond cost $1 a barrel ?—A. Well, we 
take our salt. It is in the outside part of the town, in the storehouse. 
We have to send men to head it, and cooper it, and we have to pay for 
teaming it. 

Q. You are explaining why you charge a profit upon it?—A. It is no 
profit. I am a dealer in salt, and import 50,000 hogsheads of salt. I 
think our Liverpool salt sells at $1.75 a hogshead. 

Q. To whom ?—A. Any dealers that wish to purchase. 

Q. How many barrels toa hogshead 7—A. We usually get down here 
two barrels. 

Q. Is that all?—A. That is what we get. When we sell it, we call it 
three and a half bushels to a barrel. 

Q. You charge the vessel about 15 cents more than the price ?—A. 
We charge the vessel no profit on the salt. The vessel has to pay the 
extra charges there will be for cooperage, teaming it, and taking it to 
the vessel where she lies, and taking it in. 

Q. Then you charge in addition to these things for the charter of the 
vessel] $1,000, and then you charge insurance on the charter and outfits. 
You charge insurance upon the provisions you supply to the men. Do 
you, as a matter of fact, insure them?—A. Any man that charters that 
vessel has an insurable interest there. Any careful man will insure that 
interest he has there. There is nothing there that any business man 
would not call an insurable interest. 

Q. What insurable interest have you in it?—A. I have no insurable 
interest. It is the man who has chartered her that has insured her. I 
think there are a good many things I haven’t charged. 

. Now, you have skippership or master’s commission on net stock, 
$3,75U, at 4 per cent., $151.20; and you make the total expense amount, 
without interest, $2,215.40. It is a very curious result. You think that 
is correct ?—A. In my best judgment, that would be as fair as I could 
make it. 

Q. I picked up a paper here on the table when you were giving your 
evidence, the Commercial Bulletin of Boston. That is well recognized 
as a commercial paper of standing, I believe. Now, in looking at the 
prices which you allowed this vessel for her mackerel, I find you are || 
very much below the market prices quoted here. This is the extract; 
I will read it: ‘* Prince Edward Island Number ones (I see that they 
specially quote the Prince Edward Island Number ones), from $18 to 
$19. Large Number twos $17 to $18; twos $12 to $14. Large Num- 
ber threes $9 to $10. Medium threes $9 to $10. Now I have taken 
your prices. You give $16 for the $19 that they give. Where they 
quote $18 you give $10. Where they quote $9 to $10 for medium threes 
you give $6.—A. I have based that on the fish that were actually sold 
and were bought by Benjamin A. Baker. The prices he paid were these* 
stated in that account. | 


| 


* e 2 e ioe 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2563 


Q. That cannot be extra mackerel ?—A. Extra mackerel, mess mack- 
erel, if a man had any, would be larger. 

Q. Well, I understand that is a theoretical statement, and I want to 
test it in one or two ways. Now, if I take the prices as quoted in the 
extract I have read, I find they would make a difference of $1,325 in 

favor of the charterer; or, deducting the loss which you state of $325, 
there would be left a clear profit of $1,000, taking the Boston prices as 
quoted.—A. Im my account I take the Gloucester rates, the wholesale 
Gloucester rates—actual sales which occurred at the time I came here, 
and which I ean verify. 

Q. What I say is, that if I made up the figures at these prices quoted, 
not the highest, but the average—for instance, instead of taking 
the large No. 2’s at $18, I leave them out altogether and take the 
small ones at $14, and for the 3’s I take the medium quality, not the 
highest—in this way allowing every charge that you put against the 
vessel, [ have a clear profit of $1,000.—A. I have taken a trip of mack- 
erel as I know they packed out. I would like to say one word more. 
There is a difference between the grades in different towns. One town 
will have a grade that will fetch more than another, and the brand does 
not guarantee that the quality is there. I don’t know about Prince 
Edward Island. The grade may be very much higher, and the price 
may be much higher. I havetaken the actual value as the fish sold. 

Q. But this is your State inspection?—A. That paper does not say so. 

Q. It says Prince Edward Island No. V’s. There is no inspection 
there at all— A. That is the name of the mackerel. They are inspected 
there. ‘ 

Q. No; they are not. Are not all mackerel that go into the United 
States inspected? Haven’t they to submit to inspection by an officer 
of the State ?—A. 1 think the buyers inspect them. 

Q. Don’t you know that they are all inspected by some Official there ?— 

_A. Ll suppose they are. The buyers reinspect them. 

Q. You are brought here as a man having an extensive acquaintance 
With this matter, dealing largely in fish, and owning vessels. Do you 
mean to say you don’t know whether the mess-mackerel imported into 

the United States are inspected by an official of the United States ?— 
A. I never had any know ledge as to the mackerel from the provinces. 

Q. Do I understand that I could send mackerel in from the provinces 
_and put them on the market without having an inspection at all ?—A. 
| Idon’t know anything about it. 

- Q. How did you do with the mackerel you got here; was there not an 
tor of fish ?—A. Yes. 

~Q. Did he not inspect them under a State law ?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. Are you not compelled to submit to that?—A. We do. 

-Q. Have you any doubt that that applies to all mackerel ?—A. I sup- 
pose it does. I don’t know what international law there may be with 

ply it. There may be an international law that the fish, being 
| adn free of duty, are admitted without inspection. I know noth- 
ing about that. 

QQ. Now, we have had witnesses here to state positively, as I under- 
stood, that the mackerel which came from the bay and the mackerel 
Which came from your shores were assorted and branded, and the same 

| brands put upon both by the State inspector. I may be wrong, but I 

_ understood the evidence in that way.—A. I don’t know that I undez- 

| stand you. Do you say that all qualities were branded alike ? 

-Q. No; but that the mackerel are taken and assorted and marked 


| ies 


2564 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and sent out with the official stamp as Nos. 1, 2,and 3.—A. That‘is my 
custom. 

Q. Iam not speaking of a custom but of a law to which you have to 
submit.—A. I would say here that mackerel coming from the State of 
Maine are not reinspected ; they are landed in our town from Portland. 

Q@. Are they not inspected in the State of Maine ?—A. They are, bat, 
I think, not under any State law. 

Q. Do you know ?—A. I don’t knowhow it is this year, for sometimes 
they have a State law and sometimes they haven’t. 

Q. The mackerel imported into Maine are governed by the laws of 
Maine, and I suppose they haven’t to submit to another inspection, but 
I am speaking of foreign mackerel. Do you mean to say there is 
one State law for Gloucester and another for Boston ?—A. I know 
mackerel are landed by us and we have to make returns to the in- 
spector. In some cases of mackerel coming from the State of Maine we 
don’t. 

Q. Of course not; you don’t want to have them inspected twice ?7—A. 
But I don’t know how it applies to provincial mackerel. I. never 
handled any. 

Q. I will just repeat the question. Do you mean to tell us now, seri- 
ously—you have been in business all the semany years, engaged very 
largely in the business—do you mean to say that you really don’t know 
whether there is a State law requiring the inspection of foreign fish 
imported into Massachusetts?—A. I don’t know; [never investigated it. 

Q. You have never dealt with those who catch these fish—with pro- 
vincial dealers ?—A. I never did. 

Q. You never made the slightest inquiry 7—A. I never inquired. 

Q. Now, if you went into the market to-morrow, would you buy fish 
without the inspector’s mark ?—A. I would buy them at the quality 
they were by looking at them. 

Q. Would you, without their having the inspector’s mark ?—A. I 
would if the quality suited. 

Q. Could you sell them without having them inspected? Would you 
not be breaking the law ?—A. I could sell them anywhere in the State 
without being inspected ; but I could not send them out of the State. 

Q. Then there is no necessity for inspection at all ?—A. Not in the 
State of Massachusetts. 

Q. Then, when you import your mackerel, you are not compelled to 
have them inspected ?—A. I have, in order to send them out of the 
State. 

Q. If you don’t intend to send them out of the State?—A. I can sell 


them to my neighbors or any one around me by the cargo without in-| — 


spection. 


Q. Well, can he put those mackerel into the market and sell them to} 


the person who consumes them, or to a trader to retail them; can that 
be done without inspection A. I think they have to be inspected. 

Q. Don’t you know? Have you any doubt atall ?—A. No; you asked 
me if I could sell them ; I say I can. 


Q. I am asking you for full information, not as to the means by which 
the law can be evaded. Do you believe there is a different law rega- 
lating the inspection of fish in Boston from that which regulates it in 
Gloucester ?—A. I believe there is not. But I would say in regard to 


inspection that I have sold hundreds of barrels every year without in-| 


spection. I sold two cargoes this year without inspection. 
Q. How much have you to pay for inspection ?—A. Two cents to the 
general inspector. 


1a 
| 


. 
. 
. 
; 
; 
] 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . .2565 


By Mr. Foster : 


Q. That does not answer the whole question. How much does inspec- 
tion cost you?—A. We receive ten cents a barrel for inspection from 
the purchaser. 

Q. Of which two cents go where ?—A. To the general inspector. 

@. Where do the other eight cents go ?—A. To the deputy. 


By Mr. Davies: , 

Q. There ar@no means of evading the payment of that 10 cents ?—A. 
No. 

Q. Are you aninspector?—A. Iam. Every man is to a certain extent. 
I receive 8 cents. 

Q. You are paid so much for inspecting the fish 7—A. I am paid by 
the charterer. 

Q. And you inspect your own fish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Does the geveral inspector oversee it?—A. He is supposed to. 

Q. You are an inspector of fish in that State, and don’t know what the 
law is ?—A. Our Massachusetts law? I know the Massachusetts law in 
regard to the fish J inspect. I don’t know how it applies to fish coming 
from other States. 

Q. Did you ever read the law ?—A. I have read it frequently. 

Q. Does it not apply to the whole State?—A. It does, but I don’t 
know how it is as to fish imported from the provinces. 

Q. What did you mean by telling me you did not know what the Bos- 
ton law was ?—A. I did not say that. 

Q. What did you say with reference to inspection in the Boston mar- 
ket ?—A. I said—I don’t know just what the words were. We have had 
considerable talk on this inspection business. I don’t know what you 
refer to. 

Q. I am satisfied I reported you correctly ?—A. I say it is just the 
same as it is with us as far as our home fish is concerned. I don’t know 
as to Prince Edward Island mackerel, whether they are subject to in- 
spection or not. 

Q. Is it subject to inspection in Gloucester?—A. I have no knowledge 
whether it would be liable to be reinspected or not—mackerel that has 
once been inspected. 

Q. I am speaking about foreign mackerel imported, which has not 
been inspected.—A. I think all mackerel that has not been inspected 
would have to be inspected. 

Q. Therefore Prince Edward Island fish would have to be inspected ? 
—A. Prince Edward Island mackerel are branded such and such a 
brand. It is inspected. 
 Q. Where?—A. In Prince Edward Island. 

Q. How do you know?—A. Because your paper gives them as such. 
_ Q. Nosuch thing.—A. I have seen them branded as No. ones. I take 


it for granted they were No. ones, because they were branded. 


~Q Would you as inspector take it for granted and not inspect them 
if you saw a vessel land them?—A. I should take it for granted they 


_ Were. 


t 


Q. And not inspect them ?—A. Without inspection. 
Q.' And would you not charge your fee?—A. I should not charge a 
fee if I did not inspect them. : 
Q. Is that your practice?—A. I have never had them. 
_Mr. Foster (to Mr. Davies). Do you state as a fact that there is no 
official inspection in Prince Edward Island ? 
Mr. Davigs. Yes. 


| cee 


2566 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Mr. Foster. How is it in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton ? 

Mr. DAviEs. I don’t know; I believe there is in Halifax. 

Q. Now, one moment more. You say yourself you are ina pretty good 
position as the result of your fishing business?—A. I don’t know that 
I said that. 

Q. Well, I will ask you. At the time you ceased your fishing in 1864 
you went into business. Then you must have had some capital ?—A. 
Well, I had some. 

Q. Sufficient to justify you in entering into business ?-@A. Well, they 
have said I have done as well as any one, or better. 

Q. And you made money?—A. I had accumulated considerable. 

Q. Give us an idea.—A. I had some thousands. 

Q. Now this statement of the result of a catch of 400 shows a loss. 
I find, however, that your average catch, although you have been the 
largest in the bay, has only been 469, or between four and five hundred 
during the whole time. So your average catch. during that period has 
only been about the namber of barrels which you say would result in a 
loss ?—A. I was the owner, which would make some difference. I don’t 
know that it is shown I did make a fortune in the bay. 

Q. I take your statement as you gave it, that you had considerable.— 
A. I never said that. 

Q. You said that you had enough to justify you in going into buasi- 
ness.—A. I should not have gone into business if I had not thought 5 
had enough. 


Q. Now I ask you this: Can you produce instead of this a statement — 


copied from your books showing what your vessels actually did 7—A. I 
can; not to-day, because I have not the books with me. I would say, 
however, my business was various. I was employed in a number of 
different branches of trade all those years. 

Q. And incidentally the business connected with fishing is a profit- 
_ able one I believe, is it not, to those engaged in it; I mean supplying 
vessels ?—A. In some instances. 

Q. As a general rule ?—A. Well, there is a profit in the business. 

Q. It gives employment to a large number of hands ?—A. Yes; four 
or five men to a concern. 

Q. It is in point of fact the staple business of Gloucester ?—A. Cod- 
fishery. 

Q. The fishery business ?—A. Well, that is the main business. 

Q. I see by the returns that two- thirds of the whole are codfish and 
one-third mackerel.—A. To the town ? 


Q. Of the whole fishing business of the town?—A. It has varied in © 


different years. 

Q. The business gives employment to a large number of hands ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Upon it, to a very large extent, the prosperity of Gloucester de- 
pends?—A. I should say it did—to the fisheries. 

Q. I find a Gloucester paper of August 31 comments on this very 
fact. I want to see whether you agree with it or not. It was written 
at the time when the shore fishery threatened to be a failure. The Cape 
Ann Advertiser says: 

What shall we do if the mackerel fleet do not get good fares, is now the query in 
many minds. The failure thus far makes money positively a scarce article in this 
community, where usually at this season there are comparatively flush times. The 

roceeds of a hundred thousand barrels of mackerel scattered through a community , 

ike this of ours give all classes a share, and this it is which we depend upon to keep 


business lively, pay up bills, and the like. There is a chance yet to catch them, but it 
will be lively work to make up a season’s work now, unless the mackerel strike in in 


| 
| 
| 
i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2567 


large numbers, and the fleet are right on the spot to take advantage of it. Nothing 
that we know of in the way of good news, in a business point of view, wonld be more 
welcome at the present writing than the intelligence that the Gloncester mackerel 
fleet were coming in with “heavy decks.” It would enliven everybody, and the fact 
would insure provisions and fuel for the coming winter to many a family who are now 
very anxious as to where their supplies are to come from. 

Does that contain the substantial facts or not?—A. I should say 
that if 200 sail of vessels prosecute that business, and go to sea and get 
no fish, the people do not get any meat or bread. 

Q. There aré a large number of people dependent on the success of 
that enterprise ?—A. Yes; on all the business; that is one of the main 
portions of the business. 

Q. You have said that lately the catch on your coast was better ?—A. 
It has been better during five or six years. 

Q. Here is a paper of October 6, and I find, under the head of ** Bos- 
ton Fish Market,” the following : 


Mackerel are arriving in sufficient supply from the provinces to meet all demands. 
Good fish are most in demand, at full prices. Our home shore fleet is now near at 
hand on the Middle Bank. It is probably the largest that has been together this sea- 
son, over 300 sail. The first of the week they took a few fish with hooks, of better 
size and quality, but during the past three days they have done nothing. 


Q. Do you know of that? It refers to three days preceding 6th Oc- 
tober.—A. [ had vessels going—though I[ was not out fishing and could 
not tell personally—and I know they came in with very fair trips. That 
is the only knowledge I have. 

Q. The editor of the Commercial Bulletin generally picks up his in- 
formation from those best qualified to give it?—A. I don’t know where 
he picks it up. He did not come to me for any. 


Q. You are not the sole depositary of information, I suppose ?—A. I 


_ could have given him some information about it. LIcould have spoken 
of my own experience. The David Lowe, the day before I came away, 
brought in 150 barrels, which had been caught two miles off the coast, 
and one-third of them were ’s. That was one item, which does not ap- 
pear there, that I would have given him if he had called upon me. 

Q. Could you tell whether any fish was caught during the three days 
preceding 6th October ?—A. I could not tell. ; 

Q. Mr. Foster asked you a question about blackmailing American 
fishing vessels on the part of the officers of the navy. Do you know 

_ anything about the vessels ?—A. I never had any personal knowledge. 

Q. You have no reason to know it, except from common report ?—A, 


0. . 
_Q. Which may or may not be true?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. Were any of your vessels ever blackmailed in that way ?—A. Not 
to my knowledge. It was the common report that Captain Derby took 
20 barrels of mackerel from one vessel. 
_ Q. In 1866 you were not fishing ?—A. No. 

_Q. Nor in 1867 or 1868 ?—A. Not since 1864. 

~ Q. You took out licenses ?—A. Yes. 

Q. During two years you took out licenses, and the crew had to pay 
halt the fees?—A. It was made a stock charge. I am not positive about 
it, but I believe so. I would direct it to be done so, if I was there. _ 

_Q. They would therefore judge whether it was best to take out license 
or not ?—A. Yes; I suppose so. : 

_Q. In 1868 your five vessels took only 625 barrels, and that year you 
| did not take out a license ?—A. Yes. 
Q. May not that account for the very small catch ?7—A. If the cap- 
tains of those vessels had deemed it of great importance they would 


2568 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


have taken out licenses if the fish had been somewhere where they 
could not take them without a license. 

Q. They could not go inside to try 7—A. Others could, and they 
would know it, for it would be reported to them. If they knew the 
fish were within the 3-mile limit, it would only have taken the vessel one 
day to have got a license, and on board of the cutters themselves licenses 
could be obtained. 

Q. You have said you did not take out licenses in 1865 because the 
price had gone up?—A. Yes. 

Q. That was the reason ?7—A. Yes. 

. It had nothing to do with the fish taken ?—A. You asked me if 
that was not the reason why they did not get more mackerel. If they 
could have got mackerel in large quantities in that prohibited ground 
by taking out licenses, I know that, though I had given directions not 
to take licenses, they would have taken them. 

Q. Did you give directions not to take licenses ?—A. I did, I think. 

Q. You gave the captains directions not to take out licenses ?—A. I 
think the matter was talked of, and it was considered that it would not 
pay, as the expense was too large. 

Q. You gave instructions not to take licenses?—A. I think so. I 
don’t remember exactly. 

Q. And the five vessels took 625 barrels ?—A. Those are the actual 
figures taken from the books. 

(). Can you tell me, from the comparative statement of the bay and 
shore trips, which you have given in, what is the length of time occu- 
pied on the bay and shore trips, respectively ?—A. The shore trip com- 
prises the season for that vessel, though the catch is taken on different 
trips, occupying different lengths of time. 

Q. You are instituting a comparison between trips made in the bay 
and off the shore, and unless we know the times occupied by the vessels, 
no comparisons can be made ?—A. The vessels would average about 
four months or soeach. The shore vessels land several trips each, while 
the ‘bay vessels only make two fares. 

Q. The shore vessels fish from early spring till fall?—-A. Perhaps a 
part of the fleet went out on lst June. I don’t know that we had any 
go south in May, but we may have had one or two early in June. 

Q. And from then till November ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They fish late there?—A. Abort the same time as in the bay ; 
sometimes a week later, but it depends on the weather. 

Q. You think the mackerel are about as late in the bay as on your 
own coast?—A. If the weather permitted. There may be a week or 
ten days’ difference—ten days, I should say. 

Q. That opinion is different from what we have heard from some of 
the other witnesses ?—A. I say perhaps ten days if there is fair weather. 
Usually, after October, it is very boisterous, and our vessels don’t get 
much chance of fishing, and come away. There are often mackerel 
there, but there is not much chance to cateh them. I have often found 
mackerel there later than many of the vessels stay, but I had no chance 
to catch them. 

@. You cannot tell me the exact time the vessels were occupied in 
catching the trips ?—A. Not the exact time. 

@. Are the mackerel you catch on your shore classed No. 3’s along in 
the spring ?—A. They are mostly always threes till the middle of June. 
Along about then they begin to get some fat on them, but not much. 

Q. They don’t go beyond No. 3’s ?—A. We get some 2’s. 

(. Any proportion ?—A. Not a large quantity. 


—— 


Seven tia e 
i a i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ , 2569 


Q. I see the prices you have got for bay mackerel are very much 
larger than that which you got for shore mackerel. Tor instance, take 
1868, vou got $16 a barrel for bay and $11.87 for shore mackerel 7?—A. 
The bay mackerel of that year, or the mackerel caught at the Magdalen 
Islands, were all very large and heavy, and the average was very much 
higher because there were no poor or small mackerel among them. In 
the shore catch of that year many of the mackerel were caught early, ° 
large quantities in June and July, which made the average lower. 

Q. You don’t know that, because you were not fishing in 1868 ?7—A. 
I know that from the reports of my captains. 

Q. The next year the discrepancy is still greater. In 1869 you got 
for bay $16 and for shore $8.75, only about one-half. Is that on account 
of your.catching 3’s on your own coast and large mackerel in the bay ?— 
A. No; not always. When our vessels went into the bay they got 
many No. 1’s, and along our shore they caught smaller mackerel. 

Q. I don’t mean to say that No. 1’s are taken round Cape Breton or 
_ Prince Edward Island, but I mean round at the Magdalen Islands did 

they happen to be No. 1’s ?—A. You may take that year or a sevies of 
years, they are always better there. - 

Q. Take 1870. You got for your bay mackerel $13 and for shore 
$8.81 ?—A. It is very true. 

Q. That must show that the mackerel caught on your shores are in- 
ferior to those got in the bay 7—A. Not always. 

Q. As a rule?—A. As a rule, I don’t know that they are. 

Q. Is it not so, according to your experience ?—A. The experience of 
our vessels and the mackerel they land proves that, on an average, No. 
mackerel was higher than bay. When bay was 318 sbore was 

22. 

Q. For Block Island mackerel?—A. No; for mackerel caught off our 
coast. 

Q. I am speaking of the prices you got yourself. I will take the last 
two years ?—A. Take this year. 

Q. Lhave not a return of this year here. In 1875 you got $11.33 for bay 
and $9.81 for shore. In 1876, $10.20 for bay and $5.80 for shore, nearly 
double the price for bay. It is a very curious thing that if the bay 
mackerel are not better you should get double the price. What is the 
reason 7—A. No. 1 mackerel caught here are no better than those caught 
there. Our vessels went in the bay later in the year, and consequently 
their mackerel averaged a higher price. They went in at the season 
“when the mackerel were best. The vessels on our shore fished in the 
early part of the season and caught poor mackerel, which makes their 
average lower. 

_ Q. Lunderstand that you did not catch mackerel around Seven Isl- 
ands or the shores of the river St. Lawrence during your actual fishing 
operations ?—A. I never caught any of any account. 

Q. Have you been up there and tried to fish ?—A. I have been up 
around Bonaventure Island and along that shore. 

Q. Did you ever fish at Seven Islands ?—A. I was there once. 

Q. Did you try to fish there?—A. I suppose we did try. 

Q. How close to the shore did you try ?—A. When [I tried there I 
dou’t know that I caught any fish, or that I threw bait; I was there for 
that purpose. We tried close to the shore. 

Q. How close; within half a mile or a mile ?—A. Within half a mile. 

-Q. And the fish taken there are taken that distance from shore 7—A., 

I heard reports that mackerel were there, but I found none there. 


Pe 


2570 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Did you ever fish round Bonaventure ?—A. I never caught any 
there. 

Q. You never tried there much 7—A. No. 

Q. And I believe you tried only once in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. I caught 
on one trip 50 barrels in Bay Chaleurs. 

Q. Where was those taken ?—A. Somewhere off Paspebiac. 

* Q. Upon the south side of Bay Chaleurs ?—A. On the north side. 

Q. You went in within three miles of the shore ?—A. I don’t know. 
I was out in the bay; I don’t know where. 

Q. You said at first you were not within three miles of the shore.— 
A. I don’t know what distance I was from land; I was out in the mid- 
dle of the bay. I don’t know whether we were within the three-mile 
limit or not. I don’t know whether the bay at that point was ten miles 
wide; it might be six. I don’t know and [I had no reason to care 
whether I was within the three-mile limit or not. It was im 1856, I think, 
during the Reciprocity Treaty. 

Q. The chances are, then, that you went inside ?—A. I don’t know 
about that. I went where the fish were. 

Q. Did you make Bay Chaleurs a resort ?—A. I never was there much. 
I was there sometimes for a harbor. 

Q. And when you were in for a harbor, you did not try to fish there ?— 
A. I did not try to fish there; I have seen others try. 

Q. Did you fish down the west shore of New Brunswick much 7—A., 
I have fished there. 

Q. Within three miles of shore ?—A. No. 

Q. I think around Prince Edward Island you never fished within 
three miles of shore?—A. Not much around the island. 

Q. Round Cape Breton you fished every fall, more or less?—A. Mostly 
every fall, more or less; late in the fall. 

Q. And you caught mackerel off Margaree, sometimes one mile and 
sometimes three or four miles off?—A. Yes. 

Q. And every fall you got more or less off Cape Breton shore ?—A. 
A small portion I caught there. I might have caught in all my picking 
perhaps one-tenth of all my mackerel there. One year, I think, the 
last year I was there, I caught from 75 to 100 barrels there. 

Q. I think you said you could not recollect what proportion ?—A. I 
cannot tell positively; I should judge I caught that proportion. I have 
no record. 

Q. You have no record and it is fourteen years since you were there. 
Have you heard from the captains of your vessels whether the habits 
of the fish of late years have changed, and that they are now found 
nearer the shore than they used to be ?—A. I have not heard that. 

Q. Have you not heard it at all in any way?—A. I never heard that 
the fish had changed their localities. 

Q. Have you ever heard in any way of late years that the fish in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence are found closer to the shores than they used to 
be?—A. I have not. I have two vessels there and I hear from them 
every week. They have not found any near the shore, or anywhere else. 

Q. Some years you say you caught your fish everywhere and you did 
not make any large catch ?—A. One year we had avery hard season. 
We were fishing all over the bay. 

Q. Did you ever see a large fleet down at Port Hood?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many American vessels have you seen there?—A. I never 
counted them. I should think I have seen 200 sail; perhaps 150. 

Q. They would be there on the same mission as you?—A. They 
usually come there when bound home; they stop there. 


ae. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | _ 2571 


Q. For the fall fishing ?—A. Yes, for the end of the trip. They don’t 
fish round Port Hood. When they come there with an easterly gale, 
they sometimes go off on Fisherman’s Bank, and sometimes across to 
the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. I notice you fishermen always state that the fish are taken off 
Banks; are the waters on those Banks shallower than the general waters 
of the gulf?—A. It is all fishing-ground on Fisherman’s Bank. ; 

Q. I take it that at Fishermau’s Bank the water is shallower than that 
surrounding it?—A. I suppose that Bank implies there is shallower 
water there than that surrounding it. 

Q. I want to know from you as a practical man if that isso?—A. Yes; 
there is always shallower water on Banks. 

Q. On Banks Bradley and Orphan; are we to understand the water 
is shallower there ?—A. When you come to Bank Orphan you find dif- 
ferent depths of water from 40 to 300 fathoms. It is deep water down 
in the gulf and we don’t look for mackerel in deep water. We always 
look for fish off soundings. 

By Mr. Foster: 


Q. You said you did not know of any market for mackerel except the 
Gloucester market ?—A. Not any more than what I ship west in small 
quantities. 

Q. Gloucester has become a great distributing center ?7—A. Yes, it is 
considered so. 

Q. All the mackerel that comes into Gloucester, almost all, comes in 
American vessels, does it not ?—A. I don’t know of any other. 

Q. Do you have any mackerel imported into Gloucester that is: im- 
ported from the provinces and not in American vessels ?—A. I don’t 
know of any. 

Q. All the imported mackerel comes to Boston ?—A. I think invariably. 

Q. Do you know any mackerel by the name of Prince Edward Island 
mackerel ?—A. Nothing more than that I have seen it in print and on 
the wharves at Boston. : 

Q. You have seen it branded in that way ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And have you seen other barrels branded Nova Scotia and Hali- 
fax?—A. I think I have; Halifax mackerel and herring. 

Q. But whether the Prince Edward Island mackerel is mackerel that 
is sold before it is inspected in the United States or not, you don’t 
know ?—A. I have no practical knowledge of it. 

» Q. Can you tell what reinspection of mackerel means ?—A. I will 

ll you the practical part of reinspection. Mr. Franklin Snow has 
1,000 barrels of island mackerel branded No. 2’sand I’s. He takes those 
mackerel in his warehouse and reassorts them. Of the No. 2’s he makes 
one-half No. 1’s, and out of the No. l’s he makes one-half extras, and 
those extras are sold at $18 and $19, and No. ’s at $16, the prices 1 


- quoted. 


ee Is the insurance of outfit a common practice at Gloucester ?—A. 
is. 

Q. In regard to Liverpool salt—you stated that the actual cost to the 
importer, out of bond, would be 874 cents a barrel ?—A. To the buyer 
from the importer. ; 

Q. And that is in a bonded warehouse, some distance from your 
wharf ?—A. Some half mile or so. 

Q. And for the handling of it, teaming it, getting it on board the vessel, 
and for coopering, you have allowed 124 cents a barrel ?—A. I have 
allowed an amount that would cover the expense. The teaming is 10 


cents a barrel. 


es 


2572 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. That is leaving 25 cents a barrel for coopering and putting on 
board of your schooner ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The profit on packing out a barrel of mackerel, including all ex- 
penses—what would it amount to,in your judgment? How much would 
a man get, clear of what he pays out ?—A. I think from 10 cents to 15 
cents a barrel, outside of the inspection. The inspection fee he receives 
from the purchaser, and it is 10 cents a barrel more. 

Q. Out of that inspection fee 8 cents go to the deputy inspector ?—A. 
That comes out of the consumer, I guess. 

Q. Of the fee the deputy inspector gets 8 cents and the inspector-gen- 
eral 2 cents, and he appoints almost any one who will give him the 
requisite bonds and pay him the 2 cents a barrel. The deputy inspec- 
tor is responsible for the quality of the mackerel ?—A. He is responsi- 
ble to the purchaser. 

Q. And he is liable, and his bonds are liable, for any deficiency 7—A. 
The general inspector is really the party who is responsible, and he 
looks to his deputy. If the purchaser thinks the fish are not what they 
should be, he calls on the inspector-general, and he calls on his deputy 
and compels him to make it good or looks to his bonds to do so. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. How does the inspector-general know what barrels each deputy 
has inspected ?—A. The deputy has his name ia full on the brand. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. The inspection mark guarantees that the contents of the cask or 
barrel shall be up to a certain legal standard ?—A. A certain number 
of pounds have to be there, and the fitness of the mackerel is all in the 
judgment of the men who select the mackerel, and if the purchaser 
objects to them, as being not what they should be, it has to be left to a 
jury of inspectors to decide whether they are of the standard fitted for 
the brand. 

Q. You estimate that 40 cents a day is the cost of provisioning each 
mnan in a crew ?—A. We base that on actual statistics. 

Q. For what purpose were the statistics prepared ?—A. For centen- 
nial purposes, by the different firms. The firms took their books and 
got out amounts, and we found that 40 cents a day would simply pay. 

Q. You were asked if it was not a supposed voyage of which you 
have given an account?—A. That was a supposed voyage. 

Q. No vessel has come back from the gulf with 400 barrels of mack- 
erel this year ?—A. No one has brought back any such quantity. 

Q. That is a larger quantity that is supposed than has come back 
from the gulf this year?—A. I heard that the Gertié E. Foster, two 
days before I came away, had arrived with 300 barrels. I don’t know 
the quantity packed out. 

Q. And in regard to the price at which the mackerel is supposed to 
be sold ?—A. The price of mackerel is the market price the day I left— 
what the trips were sold for. 

Q. On what day did you leave?—A. Friday, 5th. 

Q. So, whether between the 3d and 6th mackerel were caught—you 
could not be very positive ?—A. I could not tell. I know the day I 
came away one vessel got a good haul. 

By Mr. Davies: 
Q. What are the names of your vessels in the bay t—A: Margie Smith 
is one. 

Q. Is the Etta Gott the other 7—A. Yes; she has made one trip this 
year. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 258 


Q. How many barrels did she get ?—A. 220 barrels. 

Q@. She is on her second trip now 7—A. She is out on the second trip 
at Canso. 

Q. What has she taken on the second trip ?—A. [have heard she was 
outin a gale of wind, and they had not seen any fish since the gale. 
The other vessel has got 60 barrels. 

Q. The A. J. Franklin, which was seized on 15th October, 1870, for 
fishing within three miles of the shore, and condemned, was one of your 
vessels 7—A. She was not seized while I was a member of the firm. 


No. 57. 


GILMAN S. WILLIAMs, of Gloucester, Mass., police officer, and form- 
erly fisherman and master mariner, called on behalf of the Government 
of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. You belong to Gloucester and have lived there 7—Answer. 
I have lived there 21 or 22 years. 

, Q. You went into the gulf, as a fisherman, in 1859, I believe 7—A. I 
id. 

Q. How many years in succession were you in the gulf as a fisher- 
man ?—A. I was ten years in succession in the gulf. 

Q. From 1859 to 1869 ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. During that time, excepting about the last three years, you were 
under the Reciprocity Treaty 7—.A. Yes. 

Q. And you had the right to go where you pleased?—A. Yes. : 

Q. Did you make a trial of the inshore fishery ?—A. I have tried 
inshore. 

Q. During those 6 or 7 years, when you had the whole gulf free to 
you, how did you find tie inshore fishing as compared with the outside 
fishing; that is the fishing within 3 miles of the shore and the fishing 
outside, and on the Banks and elsewhere ?—A. I caught but very few 
inshore. 

Q. How many did you you catch altogether in 1859 ?7—A. About 240 
barrels; I cannot say positively as to the quantity in that case. 

Q. Were any of those caught inside of three miles from shore 7—A. 
There might have been a few, a very few. 

Q. Of the 240 barrels, how many might have been caught inside 7?—A. 

+ Perhaps 15 barrels. 

 Q. Take the whole time, from 1859 to 1869, when you gave up the 
“regular gulf fishing; what proportion of your "fish was caught within 
the three-mile line ?—A. I should say less than one-tenth. 

Q. In 1866, I think, the Reciprocity Treaty expired. Did you then 
take out a license?—A. I did. 

__Q. Do you remember whether you took out a license in 1867?—A., I 
_ think not. 

Q. That is your impression ?—A. That is my impression. I am not 
certain either way. 

Q. You were in the bay in 1868 and 1869. Had you licenses those 

two years ?—A. No. 

Q. 1869, the last year—you feel sure about it for that _year ?—A. I 
had none then. 

Q. In 1870 where did you fish ?—A. I was on the Banks, cod-fishing. 
_ Q. In 1871 were you on the Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. 1872 were you cod-fishing again ?—A. Yes. 


2574 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. 1873—what did you do that year ?—A. I was mackereling part of 
the time. 

Q. Did you go cod-fishing in spring ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you went into the bay for mackerel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you had the freedom of all the shores ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you recollect what your catch in the bay was?—A. 350 barrels, 
I think. 

Q. In 1874 did you again go cod-fishing in spring and mackereling in 
the latter part of sammer and autumn ?7—A. Yes. 

. In 1875 did you go cod-fishing 7—A. Yes. 

. And mackereling ?—A. Yes; late in the fall. 

. How many mackerel did you take ?—A. About 80 barrels, I think. 
. 1875 was your last year?—A. Yes. 

. Have you since been in the fishing business at all ?—A. No. 

. Taking all those years together, was the business profitable to 
you ere have just made a living—nothing more. 

Q. You caught fish enough to enable you to keep fishing ?—A. Yes. 
I had to keep fishing summer and winter. 

Q. Taking your experience, has the mackerel fishery in the gulf in- 
creased or ‘decreased ?—A. According to my experience it has de- 
creased. 

Q. And from what you know of the business at Gloucester, has it de- 
creased ?— A. Yes. 

Q. Which has been most valuable, in your experience, cod or mack- 
erel fishing? Cod-fishing in spring or mackerel fishing at the latter part 
of the summer and the autumn, which is the best part of the year for 
it?—A. I have made much more cod-fishing than mackereling. 

Q. And from what you know of what is going on generally in Glon- 
cester, what do you think the relative profit between mackereling in the 
gulf and cod-fishing ?—A. The general report among the fishermen at 
Gloucester is that they do best cod-fishing. 

Q. When you have been cod-fishing, have you fished with salt bait 
or fresh bait or both ?—A. I have fished with both, mostly with fresh 
bait. 

Q. From your experience of both kinds of bait, salt and fresh, I sup- 
pose there is no doubt that fresh bait will draw fish quicker than salt 
bait 7—A. Yes. 

Q. As a commercial enterprise, either as owner of a vessel or one of 
the crew, which would be the more profitable, to use salt altogether and 
stay on the Banks, or to go into Newfoundland or elsewhere and keep 
themselves supplied with fresh bait?—A. If I was going again I would 
take salt bait. 

Q. Taking not only your own experience but what you have heard 
from other people, do you think it would be more profitable to take salt 
bait and keep on the Banks or to run in for fresh bait?—A. I have heard 
quite a number of masters say they would never go in for fresh bait at 
all, but would take salt bait. 

Q. What are the objections to going in for fresh bait?—A. There 
are several objections. A great deal of time is occupied in getting it. 
They charge a very high price for ice to save the bait with in many 
cases. There is a great deal of difficulty with the crew getting drunk 
and disorderly and not attending to their business.. 

Q. As to the licenses. You said you took a license one year for cer- 
tain, perhaps more; but you are not confident about that, for you have 
not examined into it. For what reason did you take a license when you 
did take it? You say that though you have been there a great many 


F DODOOD 


A 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . . 2573 


years, you fotind little benefit from the inshore fishing, that it does not 
amount to much. The first year you took out a license what was your 
motive?—A. I took it out to protect myself from the risk of my not 
knowing where the three-mile line was. 

Q. Why could you not know ?—A. Well, if a cutter overhauled me 
the commander would decide instead of me. He would not allow me to 
have any voice about it. 

Q. Was there any question as to how the lines were to be ran?—A. 
It was a matter I did not understand. It was a matter of dispute. Some 
said the line ran from headland to headland, and others said it did not. 
- I did not know how the cutters might decide on that. 

Q. You had heard that different claims were made ?—A. I had heard 
that different claims were made, and that there were disputes. 

Q. Except because of the disputes that might arise as to your being 
three or five miles or more out, or as to the manner in which the line 
was to be run; as to the mere value of the fish to be caught, would you 
have given anything for the license?—A. But very little, if anything. 

Q. How much would you have given ?—A. A very small sum. 

Q. Not as much as was charged ?—A. No. 

Q. Which would be most profitable to you as a fisherman or dealer i in 
fish, to have the duty of $2 a barrel on again and be excluded from the: 
three- mile limit, or to be admitted to within the three miles and have 
the duty off 1A. If I was going fishing again I would prefer having a 
duty on and be excluded from the three miles. 

Q. Suppose this three-mile line could have been marked to run, not 
from headland to headland, but to follow the indentations of the coast, 
by some mark as intelligible as a fence on shore is between one man’s 
farm and another, so that no question would be involved, would you 
then give anything for the right to fish inside of that fence?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know anything about the herring fishery off the coast of 
the United States ?—A. I have often heard it spoken of, and I have seen 
kerring brought into Gloucester many times. 

Q. Does Gloucester export herring ?—A. It does. 

Q. To what places?—A. Gottenburg is one place. I have seen ves- 
sels employed catching herring off the coast of Massachusetts. 

Q. When did you last see them?—A. The last time I saw them was 
on Saturday last. 

Q. You left Boston on Saturday in the steamer 1A. Yes. 

__ Q. Where did you see the herring-vessels fishing?—A. Very near 
Beeston light-house, in among some little islands called Brewsters. 
—Q. Perhaps the Graves?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. Did you take the trouble to count the vessels ?—A. I did. 

_Q. How many were there ?—A. I counted 51; there may have been 
two or three more perhaps; 51 were within range. 

Q. You are sure there were 51?—A, I am. 

@. Has it been the custom for some years past for Gloucester and 
other places to send small vessels to fish for herring off Boston and 
in the bay there ?—A. It has been for several years. 

Q. Do you know whether it is a profitable business ?—A. I have fre- 
quently seen them after they have been gone two or three days, come 
back with their boats or vessels full. 

Q. Do they always return to Gloucester, or do they sometimes run 
into Boston ?—A. They often go into Boston; they go into both places. 
* Q. They land the herring fresh ?—A. Yes; ’and sell them fresh some- 

imes. 


a 


2576 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Thomson: 

Q. You commenced fishing in 1859 ?—A. Yes, as master of a rons 

Q. Had you ever been in the gulf before that ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many years previous 7—A. One year. 

Q. What year?—A. Eighteen hundred and fifty-eight. 

Q. How did you go there, as one of the crew ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Had you any interest in the voyage exceptas one of the crew ?— 
A. No interest, other than in what I “caught. 

Q. Where did you fish then?—A. At Magdalen Islands and Bank 
Orphan. 

Q. Did you fish anywhere else ?—A. Those were about all the p!aces 
where we caugbt the mackerel; we may have tried some other places 
possibly. 

Q. How many did you get that time ?—A. I think 258 barrels. 

Q. Had you a license that year?—A. I think not. 

Q. Then you had aright to all the inshore fishing 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you try first, at the Magdalen Islands or Bank Or- 
phan ?—A. At Bank Orphan. 

Q. You went through the Gut of Canso, I suppose ?—-A. Yes. 

Q. Did you run straight to Orphan Bank 7—A. From where ? 

Q. Through from the Gulf of Canso ?—A. No. 

Q. Where did you go to fish first ?—A. It would be a difficult thing 
to run straight with a vessel. 

Q. Did you go direct from Canso ?—-A. We went directly there, as 
fast as we could from the Strait of Canso to Bank Orphan. 

Q. You went direct without fishing anywhere till you got to Orphan 
Bank ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where does it lie?—A. To the southward of Bonaventure Island. 

Q. You passed Prince Edward Island?—A. Yes. 

Q. And went away to the northward and westward ?—A. To the north- 
ward. 

Q. Somewhat to the westward 7—A. No. 

Q. Is it direct to the north?—A. I cannot say to a point; it is so, as 
near as I can recollect. 


Q. I suppose you never heard of good fishing at Prince Edward 


Island ?—A. I may have heard of it. 

Q. And yet your captain never staid to try any place at the island ?— 
A. We went to Bank Orphan. 

Q. You passed by East Cape and North Cape ?—A. I don’t know that 
we saw North Cape. 

Q. You saw East Cape ?—A. Iam not certain about it. I don’t recol- 
lect that we saw it. 

Q. Did you pass within sight of the island at all?—A. Yes; if it had 
been daylight we would have been in sight of it. 

Q. Were you near enough to see the island ?—A. I don’t recollect that 
I saw it. 

Q. You went direct to Orphan Bank ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many mackerel did you catch on Orphan Bank ?—A. L ean- 
not tell you positively, but I think one-half of the trip we took there. 

Q. You got 240 barrels altogether?—A. Yes, about that, as nigh as I 
can recollect; I would not be positive of the exact amount. 

Q. Why did you fix the amount at 240 barrels if you have no memo- 
randum ?—A. It is as nigh as I can recollect. 

Q. That is about 20 years ago. Have you no memorandum of it?— 
A. I think the vessel carried about 240 barrels, and she was full. 

Q. Then you had a full cargo before you came home ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2008 


Q. At what time did you go into the bay 7—A. I think in July. 

Q. And came out when ?—A. At the latter part of October, I thipk. 

Q. Immediately after you got through fishing on Bank Orphan, did 
you go direct to the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you take the fish inshore or off shore there, within three miles 
of the shore or off ?—A. I think both; partly off, more than three miles, 
and partly inside. 

Q. Was the larger proportion taken inshore or off shore ?—A. I can- 
not answer that. 

Q. What was the farthest distance from the Magdalen Islands you 
fished ?—A. Perhaps twelve or fourteen miles some of the time. 

Q. How far off was the neafest 7—A. We may have fished some within 
half a mile, perhaps; I cannot recollect exactly. 

Q. Cannot you recollect that, when you can recollect the number of 
barrels you had ?—A. No. 

Q. Well, then, you got your fall fare without having any occasion to 
try the inside waters at Prince Edward Island or the coast of Gaspé 
or in Bay Chaleurs?—A. We fished our full fare at the Magdalen 
Islands. : ; 

@. You did not try within three miles along Prince Edward Island at 
all?7—A. I think not. 

Q. Neither did you try within three miles of the New Brunswick shore 
or along the Canada shore off Gaspé 7?—A. No. 

(. Did you try within three miles of Cape Breton shore ?—A. Per- 
haps we did; I think we did. 

Q. Surely you can recollect ?—A. It is some time ago, and it is diffi- 
cult for me to remember every place at which we might have hove to 
twenty years ago. 

Q. Will you say you did or did not fish on the shore of Cape Breton 7— 
A. We caught but very few mackerel anywhere within three miles. 

4 Q. Did you fish within three miles of the shore at Cape Breton 7?—A. 

0. 
Q. Did you fish anywhere within three miles of the shore, except at 

the Magdalen Islands ?—A. No. 

Q. Why did you say you might have caught a very few inshore. I 

am speaking of 1858 altogether. What did you mean by saying you 

| Caught a small quantity inshore ?—A. I said we might have caugbt a 
_ very few. 

—_Q. How is that possible if you did not fish within three miles ?—A. I 

Still say we caught nearly or quite all of our mackerel on Orphan Bank 
and at Magdalen Islands. 

-Q. You say you might have caught a small quantity inshore ?—A. I 
aid we might have caught a few near.the sbore of Cape Breton. 

-Q. Within three miles?—A. We might have caught a few within 
three miles of the shore of Cape Breton. 

-Q. Did you fish within three miles of the shore at Cape Breton, wheth- 
er you caught any or not?—A. Lam not able to say but what I caught 
one or two mackere! within three miles of Cape Breton shore. 
 _Q. Task you, did you in fact fish within three miles of Cape Breton 

Shore ?—A. I say we might have hove to near Cape Breton Islaud aud 
caught a very few mackerel. 

Q. Are you in doubt in your mind as to whether you fished within three 

miles of Cape Breton shore ?—A. It is not possible for a man to recol- 
‘leet twenty years ago, whether he might have caught a very few mackerel 

or whether he did not catch any—— 


162 F 


——_ 


2578 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Have you in your own mind any doubt as to whether you fished 

wighin three miles of Cape Breton shore?—A. I don’t recollect. 
. Have you any doubt? I don’t ask you whether you recollect.—A. 

I have forgotten whether we caught one mackerel within three miles of 
Cape Breton shore that year or not. 

Q. You are serious, that you don’t know whether you did or did not? 
—A. Yes. I don’t know whether we might have caught a few or might 
not, within three miles of Cape Breton shore. 


No. 57. 


THURSDAY, October 11, 1877 


The Conference met. 
Cross-examination of Gilman 8S. Williams, of Gloucester, Mass., called 
on behalf of the Government of the United States, resumed. 


By Mr. Thomson: 
Question. When we adjourned yesterday we were speaking of the — 
mackerel caught inside of three miles of the shore at Cape Breton—I 
suppose that was off Margaree, was it ?—Answer. As I understood it, 
it referred to Margaree or thereabouts. 

Q. That was in 1858. In 1859 you went into the bay and got 240 bar- 
rels—where did you fish then ?—A. At Bank Orphan and Bank Brad- 
ley and Pigeon Hill grounds, the first trip. 

Q. Did you make two trips in 18597—A. Yes. 

Q. .Did you get 240 barrels each trip ?—A. No. 

Q. The aggregate of the two trips was 240 barrels?—A. In 1859—yes. 

Q. Was it your own vessel ?—A. I was master of the vessel and part 
owner. 

Q. Where did you get that memorandum ?—A. Oat of the books of 
the firm which owned ‘the vessels. 

Q. You don’t recollect yourself?—A. Not so well; not so accurately 
as to give the figures. 

Q. If you had not gone to the books, could you have recollected at all 
as far back as 1859, 18 years ago?—A. Yes, but not so accurately. 

Q. You could not recollect the number of barrels taken?—A. Not so 
nearly correct. 

Q. Could you have recollected where you fished 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You went through the Gut of Canso?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you then go straight to ‘Orphan Bank ?—A. We went to the 
Magdalen Tslands first. 

Q. Without fishing anywhere ?—A. Without fishing anywhere. 

Q. Did you take a large proportion at Magdalen Islands ?—A. We 
did not get any the first trip at the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. About what time did you enter the gulf?—A. Early in Jaly; I 
could not tell the exact date. 

Q. Then you went where?—A. As soon as we came through the gut 
we went direct to the Magdalen Islands, where we stayed a very short 
time, and went on Bank Bradley. 

Q. Did you get many there ?—A. Yes; nearly the whole. * 

Q. Where did you get the remainder ?—A. On what I eall Pigeon 
Hill ground. 

Q. That is off Gaspé 7?—A. No. 

Q. In Bay Chaleurs?—A, It is farther to the southward than Gaspé. 

(). That would be Bay Chaleurs 7—A. No. 

Q, That is about southward ?—A. No. 


2 ol = ’ . 
., . ‘ 
si ’ 
fe 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2579 


Q. Did you take many at Pigeon Hill grounds ?—A. I think about 
75 barrels, to the best of my recollection. 

Q. Did that fill the schooner?—A. Very nearly. We then worked 
a little to the eastward on to Bank Bradley again, and there made up 
our voyage. 

Q. You had then got a full fare ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When fishing at what you call Pigeon Hill grounds, how near were 
you to the shore?—A. We were just in sight of Pigeon Hill on a clear 
day ; if it was a thick day we could not see it. 

Q. How far from the shore ?—A. I should suppose he miles, to 
the best of my knowledge. 

Q. Then upon that voyage you never were within three miles of the 
shore at all ?—A. Not whilst fishing. 

Q. You then went direct back to the States?—A. Yes; to Gloucester. 

Q. You did not fish any at that time on the shores of Cape Breton or 
Margaree 7?—A. Not any that voyage. 

_ Q. How many barrels did your schooner carry with a full cargo ?—A. 
About 240 barrels is what we could carry conveniently. 
* Q. The next trip was made at what time ?—A. We got back to Mag- 
dalen Islands at the last of September. 

Q. How many did you get on that trip 7—A. 85 barrels. 

Q. Are those all you got 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Those quantities make 325 barrels for the season—not 240? On 
the first trip your schooner, which could carry about 240 barrels, got a 
full fare ?—A. [ meant to tell you that in both trips we got 240 barrels. 

Q. Did you not tell me that you got a full cargo on your first trip ?— 
A. Probably I did; if I did, I made a mistake. ; 

Q. Then, on your first trip you did not get a full fare ?—A. No. 

Q. May I ask you why, not having got a full fare on either Bank 
Bradley or Pigeon Hill ground, you did not try Bank Orphan ?—A. We 
did try as long as we were able to try, on account of the lateness of the 

_ Season. 

Q. [am speaking of the first trip ?—A. I mean the first trip. We 
| Stayed as long as we had any provisions, it being late in the season. 

Q. What do you call late in the season ?—A. We had only got time 
| to go home and get back again. As I have said, it was late in Septem- 
| ber before we returned for the second trip. 

Q. You got short of provisions ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And without waiting to get a full cargo, being short of provisions, 
ou proceeded home 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You did not think proper to try round the shores of Prince Ed- 
rd Island ?—A. We bad not time for one reason. 
~Q. You had not time to try off Cape Breton ?—A. No, not on the first 


-Q. How many barrels did you take on the first trip ?—A. About 130 
barrels, to the best of my recollection. 
Q. That was not by 110 barrels sufficient to make a full cargo?—A. 


—_Q. Still you did not try within three miles anywhere, and that was at 
atime when you were not prohibited from coming within three miles of 
| Shore?—A. No; we could go anywhere. 
| ‘Q. Wasit not singular that you did not try within the three miles ?— 
_ A. [had not been accustomed to fish within three miles of the land at 
| that time. 

‘Q. Take the next year, 1860. Did you go into the bay that year ?— 

A. Yes. 


a 


Ot 
} . == 


2580 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Where did you fish then ?—A. I fished that year, the first trip, on 
Bank Orphan and Bank Bradley, and nearly the same grouud as the 
year previous. 

Q. Except that the previous year you did not fish on Bank Orphan at 
all? You went straight from Canso to Magdalen Islands, and failing to 
find anything there, went to Bank Bradley, and from there to Pigeon 
Hill ground, and came back to Bank Bradley, and went home ?—A. 
‘Those Banks are so nearly connected that we some days hardly know 
which we areon. 

_ Q. Bank Qrphan is a considerable-distance to the north of Bank 
«Bradley ?—A. They are nearly connected in soundings and fishing. 

Q. Don’t you know perfectly well when you are fishing on Bank Brad- 
ley and Bank Orphan ?—A. Yes, if the weather is clear, so that we can 
see anything. We generally go here and there on various places between 
those Banks, wherever we think we can get fish. 

Q. You don’t know whether in 1859 you fished on Bank Orphan or 
not?—A. I think we did. 

Q. In 1860 you fished on Banks Orphan and Bradley ?—A. And Pigeon 
Hill ground. 

Q. Did you go to the Magdalen Islands 7—A. Not the first trip. 

Q. How many barrels did you get on the second trip ?—A. That was 
in 1860. We got 225 barrels the first trip. 

Q. What would have been a full fare?—A. About 250 barrels. 

Q. And you took 240?—A. Two hundred and twenty-five. 

Q. During that time you did not fish anywhere alung the coast of 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. No. 

, Q. Did you go into the Bay Chaleurs?—A. No. 

6. Or to Gaspé 7—A. No. 

Q. You did not go within three miles of the shore anywhere 7—A. 
Not at Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick. 

» Q. Did you at Margaree ?—A. I think we did. I know we did. 

Q. How long where. you fishing there ?—A. We stopped there coming 
home, and fished half a day or thereabouts. 

Q. How many barrels did you get ?—A. [ think we got three or four 
barrels. 

Q. Why did you not continue and fill up your vessel there ?—A. On 
account of scarcity of mackerel, 

Q. There you were inshore, of course ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You went home, and what time did you get back to the bay ?—A. 
I cannot tell you; but probably early in September—I1st September. 

Q. Where did you fish then?—A. At Magdalen Islands, most of the’ 
trip. 

6. Did you get your full fare there ?—A. Not quite. 

Q. Where did you next go?—A. After leaving Magdalen Islands? 

Q. Are you looking at any memorandum which shows you where you 
‘weit ?—A. No; only the number of barrels. 

Q. You went to Magdalen Islands and did not get a full fare; how 
many did you get A. I cannot tell you; about 100 barrels, I think; 
I am not certain. 

Q. Was it the same vessel as you were in the first season ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you next go?— ‘A. To Port Hood. - 

Q. There you fished iushore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you get many there?—A. A few; we fished across on Fisher- | 
man’s Bank, to the westward of Port Hood, between Cape George and: 
Georgetown. 


, 


— . 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - ‘2581 


_Q. Why did you ran back to Port Hood instead of running across to 

Banks Bradley and Orphan ?—A. It was bad weather—windy weather. 

Q. Was that thé reason you went away to Magdalen Islands ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Do you think the Magdalen Islands a sife place 7—A. It is in the 
summer season, not when it gets windy. 

Q. What time does it become unsafe?—A. After 1st October it gets 
to be very windy, and there are very few days when you can fish. 

(). Do you call Magdalen Islands as dangerous as any place in the 
gulf?—A. It is not so dangerous as to the loss of the vesselfbut it blows 
so hard in October that it is difficult to fish there. 

Q. Why is it not dangerous if it blows so hard?—A. You can always 
make a lee under the islands. 

@. Then there is no danger of the loss of life or vessel at Magdalen 
Islands?—A. I did not say there is no danger. 

 Q. Comparatively small danger ?—A. We éan always sail to the lee- 
ward of the islands, so that the wind will blow off the land. 

Q. Why did you not go to the leeward of the islands and fish ?—A. 
It blows so hard we cannot fish very often. 

. Q. Would not the water to the leeward be comparatively calm 7—A. 
It would blow so hard it would be impossible to fish; it often blows so 
hard it is impossible to fish. 

Q. Yet you call that a safe place for a vessel 7—A. Safe in regard to 
life and property. 

Q. Dol understand that Magdalen Islands are safer or as safe as 
any other place in the gulf in September and October 7?—A. As safe, I 
think, in September. 

Q. And in October 7—A. It is not as safe for property as some other 
places. 

Q. Would you prefer, as a matter of safety, to be fishing off Prince 
Edward Island in October than off Magdalen Islands ?—A. That would 

_ depend on what part of Prince Edward Island I was at. 
Q. Take the north part ?—A. I shoulé prefer Magdalen Islands. 
Q. Take East Point ?—A. East Point is a long way from any harbor 
| or any place to make a lee. 
og Souris Harbor is close by 7—A. Souris Harbor is not a safe har- 
r. 
_Q. Is there no safe harbor, as far as you are aware, on the north side 
| of the island ?—A. Malpeque is a safe harbor if you can go in in the 
_ day-time and before tbe wind has been long blowing on shore. 
-Q. How about Cascumpeque and Rustico 7—A. Cascumpeque is not a 
| Safe harbor. . 
-Q. Nor is Rustico, I suppose 7—A. I never was in Rustico; I know 
_ of no Gloucester vessels that go in there. 
- Q. Have you been at Cascumpeque since the Dominion Government 
has expended money on the harbor ?—-A. I don’t know that I have; it 
| is six or seven years since I was there, to the best of my knowledge. 
- Q. You don’t know that at Souris there is a.large breakwater, which 
cost $60,000 or $70,000 ?—A. I have heard so; I have not been there 
nee it was built. . : 
-Q. On this trip in 1860 you did not fish inshore at all when you made 
the trip to Port Hood ?—A. Only at Port Hood and near there; we 
Imight not have been exactly at Port Hood, but very near it. 
- How many did you get ?—A. A few barrels at Port Hood. 
| Q. Your whole cargo that time was how many ?—A. Two hundred 
| and twenty-five barrels. ; 


* 


2582 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. That year, then, you got over 450 barrels the two trips ?7—A. You 
are speaking of the last trip, are you? 

Q. If I understood you, the first trip you got 225 barrels ?—A. That 
is what I referred to now, when I spoke of 225 birrels; the last trip we 
got 160 barrels. 

: Q. On the last trip, did you fish anywhere on the shore of Prince Ed- 
ward Island 7—A. Yes; I hove to several times. 

Q. Within three miles of the shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where ?7—A. Between Souris and East Point. 

Q. You did not get anything ?—A. I should think oue barrrel or-so, 
to the best of my recollection. 

Q. Nothing more than that ?—A. Certainly not over five. 

Q. What was that owing to—to your not staying there?—A. Owing 
to there not being any mackerel there. 

Q. Then you went to Port Hood ?—A. We had been to Port Hood 
before fishing there. We go from bay to bay. 

Q. You did not fish on the north side of Prince Edward Le 7—A,. 
Not that fall. 

Q. In 1861, were you in the bay ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many trips did you make that year ?—A. Two. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. To nearly the same ground as the previ- 
ous year. 

Q. And neither in 1861 nor 1862 did you go inshore at all?—A. You 
are coming to 1862 now ? 

Q. Yes—A. We went first to Banks Orphan and Bradley and on 
Pigeon Hill ground, and got a fare of mackerel there. 

Q. You did not fish inshore at all ?—A. No. 

Q. You did not even try 7—A. No. 

(. You did not go to Magdalen Islands 7—A. Not that trip. 

Q. In the fall?—A. We went to the Magdalen Islands in the fall. 

Q. Were you successful there?—A. We got nearly our whole trip 
there. 

. Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. 200. 

Q. How many did you take on the first trip 7—A, 230. 

Q. All those were paying trips?—A. I never made much money out 
of mackerel. 

Q. I mean paying to the owners of the vessels ?—A. I should think 
not. 

Q. You think that each season would be a loss?—A. I owned part of 
the vessel myself and lost mouey. . 

Q. In each of those seasons, did you 7—A. In 1861 and 1862. 

Q. Who furnished the sapplies; were you one of the merchants to 
furnish supplies ?—A. No. 

Q. Did your co-owners furnish the supplies 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Did they lose money ?—A. I am not able to say. 

Q. You did not ask them whether they made money ?—A. I talked it 
over with them during the fall, when there came to be a settlement. I 
lost money myself. 

Q. In 1860, 1861, and 1862, the prices of mackerel were very low ?— 
A. I think they were. 

Q. What did you get a barrel for your fish ?—A. I cannot tell you 
now. 

Q. Are you not able to recollect what you got for your fish as well as, 
the number of barrels taken ?—A. I cannot tell you, there are so many 
years, and very different prices. 

@. Have you no idea how you happened to lose money? I suppose 


|| 


| 
| 
j 
} 
| 
| 


' 
i= 


+ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | _ 2583 


you would have lost money if you had had fall fares, instead of full 
fares within 50 barrels?—-A. There is other fishing connected with it. 
Some years there is a loss with other fishing connected with it—cod- 
fishing. 

Q. . loss with cod-fishing as well?—A. Some years, at some times. 

Q. As a practical fisherman, do you state that the inshore fishing at 
Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton, along the shore of New Brunswick 
and Quebec, are of no use to United States people?—A. Do you speak 
of Prince Edward Island in particular? 

Q. I will take all the inshore waters of Cape Breton, Prince Edward 
Island, New Brunswick, and Gaspé, and aloug the south shore of Lab- 
rador. Do you say that those inshore fisheries are practically no use to 
United States fishermen ?—A. I would not say they are no use to Amer- 
iean fishermen. 

Q. Do they make money by having access to them, or do they lose 
money—for if they lose money by them the fisheries are practically 
of no use?—A. From my own experience, they have never been much 
benefit to me. 

Q. Have they been any benefit to you?—A. I have caught a few 
mackerel there occasionally. I might have caught as many somewhere 
else, perhaps, if I had been at another fishing-ground. 

Q. [ want your judgment as to whether those inshore fisheries are 
practically of any use whatever ?—A. I should say they are very little 
benefit to me, if I was going fishing again. 

Q. That is not the question. You are a practical man, and you seem 
a fair man, and I want your opinion as to whether you think that the 
privilege of fishing inshore, within 3 miles, is of any use to United States 
fishermen.—A. I think they were not any great use. That is as fair as 
I can answer your question. 

Q. You admit they are of some use and benefit?—A. Yes. I have 
caught some fish there—a few. 

Q. All the fish you admit having caught within the 3 miles amount 
to nothing. Half the time you did not try to fish inshore?7—A. Asa 
general thing I did not try to fish there. Some years I have tried to 
fish there. 

Q. Tell me what practical use it is to the United States. Is it of any 
use at all?—A. Some other vessels may have fished there more than I 
aid. 

, Q. Have you heard of any vessels being more fortunate than you in 
fishing within 3 miles of the shore ?—A. I think I have heard of vessels 
which have taken more fish inshore than I have. 

_ Q. Have you heard of American vessels taking large fares within 3 
miles of the shore, not including Magdalen Islands ?—A. I think I have 
heard of vessels getting considerable mackerel on the Cape Breton 


- ghore. 


__ Q. You have not heard of them getting considerable mackerel along 
the coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Not large fares inside of the 
3-mile line. 
Q. Then, practically, in your judgment, it is not worth while for the 
United States to make a fight about getting in there to fish? All the 
‘trouble is really sentimental. United States fishermen get on just as 
well with the right to fish in the gulf, keeping away from 3 miles of the 
coast ?—A. I don’t think it is worth while to make a great fight about it. 
- Q. You think it would not ?—A. It would not. ; 
_Q. Are you aware whether these are the views of fishermen at 
Gloucester and Boston, that really the privilege of fishing inshore in 


2584 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


British waters does not amount to much ?—A. To the best of my knowl- 
edge the Gloucester folks don’t consider the inshore fishing in the guif 
very valuable. 

(). Do they consider it of any value at ell ?—A. I should think they 
would consider it of little value. 

(. Would the Gloucester people who are engaged in cod-fishing be 
able to employ their vessels all the year round except for the mackerel- 
fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And they would make more money by cod-fishing without mack- 
ereling ?—A. I did better myself cod-fishing than mackereling. 

@. About the general trade. Do you believe the Gloucester people 


could give their continuous attention to cod-fishing without mackerel- — 


fishing ?—A. Without that of Bay St. Lawrence—I do. 

Q. And without fishing for mackerel in Bay St. Lawrence they!would 
get along just as well ?—A. I think so. 

Q. And make more money ?—A. I made more cod-fishing myself. 

@. What you have done, other people could do, I suppose. You can- 
not account, under the circumstances, for the desire of American fish- 
ermen to get the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore in 
the gulf, can you?—A. No; I don’t know whether they do wish to fish 
witbin the three miles or not. 

Q. Do you mean to tell me they do not; if you mean it, say so ?—A. 
I am not prepared to tell you they do not. 

Q. Suppose they do, you cannot account for it ?—A. I can only ac- 
count for it, to the best of my judgment, by their not doing much within 
three miles, as far as I know. 

Q. Can you account for their wishing to get the privilege of going 
within the three miles ; you would not wish to go within the three miles 
yourself?—A. I would not give much for it myself. 

Q. Can you account for anybody having that desire ?—A. I am not 
prepared to say in regard to other people. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. Are you now interested in any fishing-vessels ?—A. No; I am 
not. 

Q. You have a thorough knowledge of the number of the vessels 
fitted out in Gloucester for the fisheries ?—A. I could not tell you the 
exact number. 

Q. Could you give me an approximate number ?—A. To the best of 
my knowledge, about 500. 

Q. Can you tell me how many are engaged in the cod-fishing business 
alone ?—A. No; I cannot. 

Q. Can you give me the approximate number?—A. To the best of my 
knowledge, I should say 200. I may not be correct. 

Q. How many may be engaged in cod-fishing at one season and mack- 
ereling at another ?—A. A great part of those which go mackereling go 
cod-fishing early in the year. 

Q. Then the greater number of the 500 vessels would go cod fishing 
and about 300 would go mackereling at one season of the year 7—A. I 
think so. 

Q. You fitted out for cod-fishing, about what time ?—A. Many vessels, 
fit out on Ist February, the greater part of them then. 

Q. And they continue cod: fishing till when 7—A. About Ist July. 

Q. Then they go mackerel-fishing in the gulf, till about what time ?— 
A. We leave the gulf about 1st November. 

Q. Are those vessels employed in any manner between the time they 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . - 2585 


leave off mackereling and commence cod-fishing 7—A. Many of them go © 
herring voyages. 

Q. Are the crews of those vessels engaged for the whole year, or are 
they engaged for the several distinct trips, cod, mackerel, and herring 
voyages 7—A. Most of the crews leave Gloucester and go to their homes 
in different parts of the country. 

Q. At what time 7—A. During the month of November. 

Q. Those same crews are engaged in cod-fishing and mackereling, but 
not on herring voyages ?—A. Not always. There are generally men 
enough living in Gloucester to man the vessels that go on herring voy- 
ages. 

Q. You hire a distinct crew, as a general rule, for the herring voy- 
ages 7—A. No; not exactly. 

Q. Are the crew hired for the cod fishing and mackerel voyages to- 
gether, and then when they retarn from the mackerel voyage is the 
crew hired for the herrivg voyage ?—A. They will not be hired for the 
herring voyage till the vessel is ready to go. Vessels may lay up weeks, 
perhaps months, after leaving off mackereling, before going for herring. 

Q. Is the same crew employed on the cod-fishing and mackerel voy- 
agés ?—A. Not necessarily so. 

Q. But generally is it not the same crew ?—A. Pretty generally so. 
They may not have been in the same vessel, but in some other vessel. 

(. You have said you were fishing on the Banks between the years. 
1870 and 1875, inclusive. Upon what Banks were you fishing 7—A. Sa- 
ble Island Bank or Western Bank, meaning all one; Banquero; also 
at the Grand Bank at different times. ‘ 

Q. How many years were you fishing on the Grand Banks ?—A. I 
have been parts of six years on the Grand Banks. 

Q. That is between 1870 and 1875 ?—A. I was part of the time also 
before 1870. 

Q. Then you were engaged in Bank fishing prior to 1870?—A. Yes. 

Q. As master?—A. Yes. 

Q. I understood you to say to Mr. Dana that from 1859 to 1869 you 
were engaged in mackerel-fishing in the gulf?—A. Parts of the years. 

Q. How many of those years, between 1859 and 1869, were you on the 
Banks ?—A. Every year but one, I think. 

Q. Then, in point of fact, between 1859 and 1875 you were every year 
ou the Banks fishing for cod, except one ?—A. I think so. 

. Q. You fit out for the Bank fishery about the beginning of February ?— 


, A. Yes. 


 Q. Can you tell me the quantity of provisions you would put on board 
your vessel for a voyageof tour months, with a crew say of sixteen men 7— 
Nine barrels of flour, not less; two barrels of pork, 25 pounds of tea, six 
barrels of beef, ten bushels of potatoes, one barrel molasses, one barrel 
‘Sugar, one barrel beans, half barrel coffee, quarter barrel rice; also some 
Small articles which I have not mentioned. 
_ Q. Do you supply the men with tobacco ?—A. No, they get that be- 
fore they leave port. ‘ 


_ Q. They get it on their own account?—A. Yes. 


Q. Can you give me the prices at which those articles were charged, 
‘Say for 1875, the last year you were out ?—A. Flour, about $8.50 per 
barrel; pork, $17 or 818 per barrel; tea, about 40 cents per pouud; mo- 
lasses, 50 cents a gallon ; rice, 15 cents to 16 cents per pound; potatoes, 
50 cents a bushel; beans, $3 a bushel; beef, about $16 a barrel; sugar, 
12 cents per pound. 

Q. Are not those charges far in excess of the ordinary cash prices of 


2586 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


those articles ?—A. I don’t think they are. I am not positive. I may 
not have been correct in the prices of those articles, but they are as near 
as I can tell. 

Q. As an ordinary rule, are not the prices charged far in excess of the 
erdinary cash prices ?—A. I cannot say that they are. 

Q. Can you say that they are not ?—A. They are not to my knowledge. 

Q. There was a witness here the other day who said that 20 or 25 per 
cent. was charged in addition to the ordinary cash price. Are you pre- 
pared to say that those prices you have mentioned were not much in 
excess of the ordinary cash prices charged for those articles ?—A. I don’t 
think they were; to the best of my knowledge they were not. 

(@. How many gallons of molasses are there in a barrel ?—A. 28, I 
believe, the way we fill a barrel. 

Q. You have given the results of your mackereling voyages, or at 
least some of them; can you give me the results of your cod-fishing voy- 
ages, as regards the quantities taken, from 1870 to 1875?—A. It would 
be rather difficult for me to do it correctly. 

Q. You cannot do so?—A. Not very accurately. 

Q. But, upon the whole, the cod-tishing voyages were paying voy- 
ages 1A, Yes, with me; I made more than I did mackereling. 

0: And does that same reply apply to all previous cod- fishing voy- 
ages from 1859 to 1869 ?—-A. Yes, with me. I may have made some bad 
voyages; I have made some poor voyages. 

Q. But, upon the whole, the cod-fishing has been successful ?—A. Yes, 
it has with me. 

@. Has not the cod-fishing fleet increased materially within the last 
two, three, or four years?—-A. Yes. 

Q. Very materially ?—A. I believe it has. 

@. When did you begin to use fresh bait ?—A. From my first going 
in 1859, we used fresh bait—going on Georges Bank from Gloucester— 
frozen herring. 

Q. Did you coutinue ‘to use fresh bait ?—A. Every year when I went 
to Georges Bank. 

Q. And how long did you continue to go to Georges Bank ?7—A. I 
have been there parts of nine winters, making one voyage each year. 

@. Where were you the remaining part of the year?—A. I came 
down to the Western Bank, and the latter part of the season went to the 
Grand Bank. 

Q. Then you made three voyages ?—A. The voyage to Georges was a 
very short one, perhaps two weeks.. 

Q. Then you made three cod-fishing voyages nearly every year, from 
1859 to 1869?—A. Yes; ; and sometimes mere than one voyage to 
Georges. : 

Q. “You stated, I think, that you had generally used fresh bait ?—A. 
I always used it when going to Georges. 

Q. You said you had fished with both salt and fresh bait, but mostly 
with fresh bait. As a general rule, you used fresh bait —A. Yes, as @ 
general thing. \ 

Q. Did you always fish with trawls?—A. Not always, but P rhaps 
for the last eight or nine years I did. 

Q. Prior to that you used hand-lines ?—A. Yes. 


fishing ; it is about the same, I suppose 1A. It i is better for hand-N 
fishing than for trawl-fishing, perhaps. 

Q. Have you ever been to parts of the Dominion or Newfoundla 
for fresh bait whilst fishing on the Banks ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - * DEGr 


Q. Where have you been ?—A. I have been to Prospect, which is not 
far from Halifax; to Whitehead, near the Strait of Canso; to the Strait 
of Canso; tu Fortune Bay, Newfoundland; and St. Peter’s on the coast 
of Newfoundland; and to quite a number of harbors on the coast of 
Newfoundland, not far from Fortune Bay. 

Q. In what year did you commence to go into those places for fresh 
bait; what was the first year?—A. I was at Prospect 10 or 11 years 
ago. I think that was the first time I came into. the Dominion for fresh 
bait. 

Q. Have you continued to get fresh bait in different parts of the 
Dominion and Newfoundland from 10 or 12 years ago till 1875?7—A. 
Not every year. 

Q. But generally 7—A. More than one-half of the time. Some years 
I have been unable to obtain it; after looking a mouth for it, I have 
not got it. 

Q. You have come in for it every year?—A. I have come in nearly 
every year I have been to the Eastern Banks. 

Q. For the last nine or ten years?—A. Yes; with one or two excep- 
tions, perhaps. 

Q. "When was the first time you went into the coast of Newfoundland 
for fresh bait ?—A. I think the first time I went to Newfoundland for 
bait was eight years ago. 

Q. To what part did you go?—A. Into Fortune Bay. 

Q. Yon went from Gloucester to Fortune Bay, and from thence to the 
Banks, I suppose ?—A. We took bait at Gloucester, and used it on the 
Western Bank, and St. Peter’s Bank, and then went to Fortune ‘Bay, 
and got bait, and went from there to the Grand Bank. 

Q. How long did it take you to go from St. Peter’s Bank to Fortune 
Bay, and thence to the Grand Banks?—A. I have usually been one 
week, aud sometimes two weeks, from the time of leaving St. Peter’s, 
until we got bait, and reached the Grand Bank. 

Q. Have you ever been in any harbor of Newfoundland between Cape 
Race and Conception Bay for bait ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever use caplin for bait ?—A. I tried it, and gave it up. 

Q. You have said you had some conversation with captains of vessels 
in reference to the use of fresh bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When had you those conversations?—A. At various times for the 
last eight or ten years. 

aa Q. And they have at all these times expressed their strong disappro- 
bation of going into ports for fresh bait 7—A. They have very strong 
bjections in regard to trouble with their crews, the time spent in ob- 
ning bait, and sometimes the price of ice in which to preserve the 
bait. 
- q. During eight or ten years these views have been expressel] by 
-you 2—A. I have heard it spoken of in that way. 
Q. Every year?—A. Perhaps not every year, but frequently. 
 Q. Generally 2—A. Yes. 
_ Q. Can you name any of the captains with whom you had the con- 
, _versations ?—A. I think I can name one or two. 
: Q. Name them —A. The last one who talked with me about it was 

William Williams, of Gloucester. 

~ QQ. Can-you name any others ?—A. I don’t think I can without think- 

. ing some time. 
Q. During the last three or four years, I believe, the great majority 
of the Bank fishing-vessels have come in for fresh bait, either into the 


wz a 
Re % 


> = . = ee es le ee ————S ll ie 
J 


2588 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


harbors of one of the proviuces or into those of Newfoundland ?7—A. I 
think they have done so. 

Q. In fact, it is the general practice at this time fur all cod-fishing 
vessels on the Banks to go in for fresh bait? I am not saying whether 
it is advantageous or disadvantageous.—A. Many of them do. 

Q. The great majority of them do; nearly all, in fact ?—A. I think 
that more than one-half of them do. I refer to Gloucester vessels when 
I say that. 

Q. Can you explain how it is, if the captaius disapprove of going into 
those harbors for fresh bait, that the practice has grown until it has be- 
come almost universal ?—A. I think it has been more difficult to obtain 
bait and ice lately than it was years previously. 
ao You have not had any experience during the last two years ?—A. 
No. 

Q. The practice being now almost universal of going into the harbors 
of the provinces, or the coast of Newfoundland, for fresh bait, how is it 
that the captains do so when you state that the practice is greatly dis- 
approved ?—A. Vessels are very anxious to get fresh bait, if they can 
do so without too much disadvantage and time spent. 

Q. It is considered so far superior that vessels are very anxious to 
obtain it, and make sacrifices to obtain it ?—A. If one vessel is fishing 
with fresh bait and another vessel is fishing near with salt bait, the one 
with the salt bait will not do as much. I presume if they all fish with 
salt bait there will not be that difference. 

Q. As a matter of fact, a salt-bait vessel has no chance when fishing 
alongside a vessel with fresh bait ?—A. Not so good a chance. 


Q. You cannot explain how it is that the practice has so increased | 


and become almost universal, when it is so disapproved ?—A. People 
are desirous of getting fresh bait. 

Q. People are desirous of getting fresh bait ?—A. Before they went 
in after this bait, I think the vessels did as well as they do now. 

Q. Can you give any statistics in regard to vessels fishing with salt 
bait and fishing with fresh bait?—A. I am not prepared to do so now. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. You were asked by last counsel (Mr. Whiteway) as to the relative 
prices at which articles were supplied you by the owners of the vessels. 
Without going into details, | would like you to state to the Commission 
how the matter is generally managed in Gloucester. The supplies for 
the vessels usually charged to the crew are usually furnished, are they 
not, by one of the owners, who acts as agent and purchases supplies ?— 
A. Usually. 

Q. Is the practice universal? Is there any obligation to buy from 
the owners ?—A. No; the crew are not obliged todo so. Ifa man has 
the money, and wishes to buy elsewhere, he is at liberty to do so. 

(. Is Gloucester a place where there are few firms; or is it a place 
where there are a great many persons engaged in the selling of all sorts 
of outfits?—A. There are a great many. 

Q. Is there any such thing as combination among them; or is com- 
petition greater than combination ?—A. There is greater competition. 


Q. What class of persons make up, for the most part, the crews which - 


sail from Gloucester? Is it or is it not the case that persons who are 
masters one day may be hands another day ?—A. Yes; frequently. 

Q. Very much so ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have among your hands a good many men who have been 
masters themselves, and understand the business ?—A. A good many 
men who have been masters, and are capable of going as masters. 


' 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | _ 2589 


Q. When they return from their trip they receive au account, do they 
not, from the owners?—A, Yes; and they are on the wharf to take ac- 
count themselves of their catch. 

Q. Do you know of anything like attempts to defraud them? Would 
it be a practicable thing 7—A. I never heard of such a thing being done. 

Q. Would it be practicable ?—A. I don’t know how it could be done. 

Q. As a rule, crews are attentive to their settlements ?7—A. The ma- 
jority of them are. 

Q. And the number of persons employed on vessels is, of course, very 
large. Do the men who go in Gloucester vessels change from one em- 
ployer to another ?—A. Yes; very frequently. 

Q. Are there various habits among the different employers and out- 
fitters, as to liberality or illiberality, as to closeness or generosity in 
making up accounts and feeding the crews, and are these pretty well 
known iu Gloucester ?— A. Perfectly well known among the crews. 

Q. When the crew comes home the vessel’s cargo is packed out. The 
mackerel are culled over when the crew are present. Is that an open 
or a close transaction ?—A. They are supposed to be all there, and gen- 
erally are. 

Q. They are present to see fair play ; they see the process of putting 
them into barrels and weighing 7—A. Yes; and one of the crew super- 
intends the weighing. 

Q. So as to the culling; is there any objection made to the culling ?— 
A. The crew are always there and speak of it. 

Q. Is it sometimes the case that the owner of vessels, instead of fur- 
nishing a fisherman with his outfit and clothing, gives him an order or 
indorses his bill on some. shop where the fisherman buys ?—A. Quite 
frequently gives the man an order to get his outfit and clothes at some 
other store. 

Q. In that case the owner becomes responsible ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If the fisherman is lost during the voyage and does not leave prop- 
erty behind him, the owner has to pay the debt ?—A. The owner loses 
the amount. 

Q. Aud if the voyage turns out unprofitable, and the man has not 
the money to pay it, the owner must pay it?—A. The owner has to 
pay it. 

Q. From your experience, do you ‘know that, when an owner has a 
store he retails articles out to his crews at retail prices, and buys ac- 
cording to his skill and sagacity at wholesale prices ?— A. Yes. 

| Q. What do you think, on an average, is the difference between the 
wholesale price at which’ the owner is able to buy, and the retail price 
| eatecd to the crew ?—A. Probably eight or ten per cent. 

 Q. You don’t think it exceeds that ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Is that a matter perfectly understood by the fishermen ?—A. Yes. 
_ Q. Do you think the fisherman who has to take credit can do better 

than that, if he undertakes to supply himself ?—A. I don’t think he can 
do better than that. 

Q. Is it not understood to be the business of the skipper to stand by 
and take accounts of all the weighing and other matters 7—A. Always. 
ns He has an interest like one of the crew ?—A. Yes; and more than 
they. 

Q. And an account is made out of what is charged to the crew and 
what to the master, and the same rate of charge is made to the skip- 

. per as to the crew?—A. Yes. 

Q. There is a regular charge for the captain as well as for each mem- 

ber of the crew ?—A. Yes. 


2590 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. How many vessels of the mackerel fleet are there that do nothing 
but fish for mackerel, that is to say, that have nothing to do with cod- 
fishing, the coasting trade, or West India trade, but lie up during the 
winter? How many of the fleet are there that do nothing during the 
winter, if there are any ?—A. There are some, but I cannot tell you the 
exact number. 

Q. Is there a great proportion of the vessels engaged in other busi- 
ness connected with cod-fishing 7?—A. Yes. 


No. 58. 


Maj. Daviw W. Low, postmaster of Gloucester, Mass., called on be- 
halt of the Government ot the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. I think you were born in Gloucester ?—Answer. I was. 

Q. What age are you ?—A. Forty-four years. 

Q. Did you at apy time go into the fishing business?—A. I did, in 
1860. 

Q. Did you go in as a partner ?—A. I did. 

. What was the name of the firm ?—A. Sinclair and Low. 

. How many years were you in it ?—A. Three. 

. In 1860, 1861, and 1862 7?—A. Yes. 

. You were engaged in fitting out vessels, I suppose?—A. Yes. 
. Did you ever make a fishing voyage yourself ?—A. Yes. 

. More than one ?—A. Only one. 

. What year was it?—A. Eighteen hundred and fifty-five. 

. Did you go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. Yes. 

. What was the vessel ?—A. Austerlitz. 

. Where did you fish ?—A. In Bay Chaleurs and round Magdalen 
Islands. 

Q. Do you recollect what you caught ?—A. One hundred and eighty 
packed barrels; we got 205 sea-barrels, I think. 

Q. You made but one trip?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you do any of that fishing inshore, within what you supposed 
to be three miles of the shore ?—A. Yes, some of it. 

Q. You tried inshore and off shore 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What success had you with the inshore fishing ?—A. We caught 
some fish. 

Q. What proportion of your catch ?—A. I should think we caught 20 
or 25 barrels inshore out of the whole trip. 

Q. At that time the Reciprocity Treaty was in force ; did you give 
the insbore fishery a fair trial ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In 1860, 1861, and 1862 you were partner in a firm engaged in 
fitting out vessels ; how many vessels did you fit out in that time ?—A, 
Eight. 

Q. Were you interested iu those eight vessels ?—A. I was in part of 
them. 

Q. What voyages did they make ?—A. They were cod-fishing on 
George’s Bank ; trawling for halibut on the Western Bank ; and mack- 
ereling in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off the American coast. 

Q. During what months were these vessels employed in cod-fishing ?— 
A. From January to June; one went for the whole season. 

Q. And the others from January to June ?—A. Yes. 


= DOOLDLOOLOO 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | , 2591 


Q. When were they employed trawling for halibut ?—A. From Feb- 
ruary to June. 

. Where did they take the halibut which they caught 7—A. They 
took the most of it to Boston then. 

Q. How was it preserved ?—A. In ice. 

Q. Was large or broken ice used ?—A. The ice is broken up on board 
to pack the fish in. 

Q. Your vessels were not smacks ?—A. No; smacks are not used in 
Gloucester at all. 

Q. What bait was used by the cod-fishing vessels during this period ?— 
A. Herring and pogies, principally. 

Q. Frozen herring ?—A. Yes 

Q. Did any of your vessels engaged in cod-fishing run into any Do- 
minion ports for bait?—A. No; not to my knowledge. 

Q. During these three years, from 1860 to 1863, do you know, from 
the reports of the masters and inquiries and otherwise, where your ves- 
sels, as a general thing, caught their fish in the bay?—A. Yes; the 
Magdalen Islands is the principal panine ground which they have men- 
tioned. 

Q. Were the fish caught, Aeconding to the reports of the masters, and 
your observatiou and knowledge, mostly outside or‘inside of what might 
be called the three-mile line ?—A. They were mostly taken outside. 

Q. How many trips did your vessels usually make for mackerel after 
they returned from cod-fishing? I suppose that some went for mack- 
erel ?—A. Some made one trip and others two trips. 

L Did they return to Gloucester when they made two trips 7—A. 
es. 

Q. In 1863 you gave up the business of fitting out vessels ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Were you in the war?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long were you in the service?—A. About two years. 

Q. To what rank did you rise 7—A. Major. 

Q. In what employments have you been engaged since the termina- 
tion of the war ?—A. Since the war I have been employed surveying 
and conveyancing, and as town clerk in Gloucester, and from the town 
clerk’s office I went to the post-office. 

Q. Apart from the duties of these posts, to what have you chiefly 
devoted your time and attention ?—A. When I was town clerk I made 
“up statistics with regard to our State, and I have done so since. 

—«Q. Have you been very much engaged in the making up of statistics 
with reference to the State and of Gloucester, and of the fishing- 
usiness and population of Gloucester, &c.?—A. Yes; more or less. 

‘Q. And those statistics have been incorporated into : ome volumes of 

amphiets ?—A. Yes. 

 Q. Have you some of them here ?—A. Yes. 

 Q. How many years of your statistics appeared in the report made 

by the secretary of state to the legislature ?—A. Those for the years 
tending from 1868 to 1872 were contained in the reports returned to 

é librarian of the commonwealth from the town. 

i Q. Have they not been adopted and sent in as executive documents 
some instances to the legislature? Do you happen to know for what 
ears?—A. The law of Massachusetts requires the town clerks to return 
the town report of each year to the librarian of the commonwealth ; 
‘ and those reports I have returned. 
_ Q. I think I saw some which seemed to be executive documents, a 


. 


2592 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ing the aggregates of property, taxes, &c., as assessed May Ist, 1870, 
compiled by the secretary of state of the commonwealth ?—A. Yes. 

Q. This was also the case for 1875? —A. Yes. 

Q. And these are two specimen pamphlets?—A. Yes. 

Q. And they contain your Gloucester reports ?—A. These are in 
them. 

Q. Have you made up a column of statistics relating to Gloucester ?— 
A. Yes; I first submit a statement with regard to its population. It is 
as follows: 

GLOUCESTER, August 24, 1877. 

The following is a true account of the population of Gloucester, in the county of 
Essex and State of Massachusetts, during the period mentioned, as shown by the re- 
turns made by the census agents appointed for this purpose: 


TSSOP sa2 cee et cclecec ceiatew isa kena ae so ajpee meee ecm ecg s ca case wocwoes heaee 7,786 
BOOS aa saso scar sooo eee s Sue siecle Scie Shae ie ates Sa caasicraciniemiaoa cre careiereer 8, 935 
NEGO awcivjs ss cerex's scsi nets oe Alot as aeatitei oa oeeieeeee waa senna! su scteee anes 10, 904 
LSG6O cade voce teen eaters amc las salen da nea salee coe arena saya eas emi ae 11, 937 
VSTi cae ese te ee veces apse cocoa eo Eee cerca semeerianies aera eee ee 15, 389 
STB ons cca seneee pee we casa tjelaeyn's ae Sane ao aaie caaiiss am eces emesis cconee see ees 16, 754 
L877 (estimated 2atycscs sesshe winseke cre eeatte see ceeebres aca caseeree nee es 17, 600 


A true copy. 

Attested by— 

. JOHN J. SOMES, City Clerk. 

Q. The census is taken once every five years in Massachusetts, alter- 
nately by the nation and by the State?7—A. Yes. 

Q. The increase in the population of Gloucester seems to be very much 
smaller for the last seven years than it was during previous periods ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. You have no doubt as to the correctness of that statement 7?—A. 
No. I also beg to submit the following statement: 


: GLOUCESTER, August 23, 1877. 
The following isa true and correct account of the valuation of Gloucester, in the 
“county of Essex and State of Massachusetts, during the period mentioned, as taken 
from the assessor’s books: 


SSO Eo cues doecciniatos fe eeisises ac cus eetetcle metres $1, 635, 787 
TBSL Cc does mck we ces seclec cers os och ce oes eee se eae 1, 705, 045 
BG Oe Ae ye be meen Sse) Nadeem ice eae eee temete 2, 373, 4288 
LEDS eesiceslnate owns Salarsinis os See Ces cee accemereas. MeOUl + Simm 
Reciprocivy.ss---1-c-oee" ASA icse soe diese Senha eis's heh oa/se acess erates 3, 272, 593 
RG Oe ee eran Sais ee at ea cots are ie ka epee eee ee 3, 304, 324 * 
USSG pre maesise case, cic nies we wales Shine Memsee Meee s 3, 720, 536 
EO6T cos ke eee ee Ab ea 3,727, 214 
DEBS Hist ares eels ee tere oe SS Rise ee eel nee te ee eee 3, 780, 785 
L859). 22 seceeeeas Sg detdsie Diazeeecicessianscerieenence 4, 051, 265 
TOGO ects oa sees Shee Soe Sena: 4, 332, 740 
PEO) ccs ecci sessed oss athe oo cS eeteecee Saw ee eee ee 4,111, 364 
1069 setae race ans ot ee ee cee 4, 021, 033 
TSG Sea cee sul eal a ee teclare cleree eeeterens 4, 053, 397 
TSCA Fae Re Sinise eee coal e 2 tenets 3, 936, 387 
pI BGS Sees Ne hace aca tae i ee ac 4, 859, 348 
Reciprocity terminated ..1866 -......--. Bobs Sco wen ce eleceee aes 5, 375, 656 
867g nas Begs Wisse ae stee ma uae oem eae see 
LOGS IE. «<1. S:cleewtso ccapiccc< lc cMec s acc cemee 6, 707, 382 
TOD; ees 2 Ss os pao scl Shee ssa A eee ecco ee aeons 6, 993, 533 
110. POs ois coon eso ce aes were son seek ales 7, 187, 107 
jk: 7 he ane nen enna, SMe MAR ey AMM a 
Treaty of Washington ~..1872 .- . ¢kis~ ---<c0s0 ncn bees s-cctnic~sccanneshps 0) OR 
O73 ch eee cuss wee ee coe eee cio cw eea sie vawle aee 7,711, 096 
WOU os Seek es laas is om saviccs Ssemecsa cele stems 8, 472, 329 
9875 eee scence eons Sacniomee c'Sheehed se, ee 
B16 Ge esc tcGe oc si cadiien ccc, os naneleeeeeecsaue 9, 380,948 « 


A true my 
Attested by— 
JOHN J. SOMES, City Clerk. 


—— —_ 
+ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. .- 2593 


’ Q. The valuation in 1875 was $9,200,000 odd ; in 1876, $9,300,000 odd, 
and in 1877, $9,200,000 odd; there seems to be no difference but rather 
a slight decrease, comparing 1877 with 1875; does that arise from any 
change of system of valuation, or is it, in your opinion, a correct valua- 
tion made on the same principle ?—A. It is a correct valuation made on 
the same principle. 

Q. During the whole period from 1850 to 1877, do you know of any 
change in principle on which the valuations are made ?—A. Well, during 
the war there was an increased valuation put on, on account of the in- 
flation of the currency. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. Those are currency values, of course ?—A. Yes; all are so. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Since 1870, and from 1870 to 1877, after the more immediate effects 
of the war had passed away, was any change of policy or principle made 
in the mode of the valuation of property ?—A. No; not to my kuowl- 
edge. 

Q. What is your next paper ?—A. It is a table showing the increase 
of the city of Gloucester, Mass., from 1850, when a town, in population 
and valuation; it is as follows: 


Table showing the increase of the city of Gloucester, Mass., from 1850 (when a town), in 
population and valuation. The census of 1840 gave the population 6,350. 


g. [Sea 

ov oo 
3 2 oS 
23 |@sés 
. E = o w 3 
Year. Census. a A S |Bses 
S RE on [ao 2Sx 
3 = tes [SSS 
3 3 “£3 |2se4 
~ = oo oeae 
° Ci Po ->5 83 

iw >. qe lq°o 
NPR piliedl Wiathe (250.285.0550 ¢ 50h remnactensavedesersaane? 7, 786 | $1,635,787 | $210 |.....--- 
1855 | State ....... - 8,935 | 3,304,324] 370] $160 

Ie iaCOG 2 ose. 2 sci ab dees geccasstacsesocues 10,904 | 4,332,740 | 396 

EER SDE Ai ME eat Ai he SD tN a 11,938 | 4,859,348 408 12 
nn irited Biateeise.. o5 0562 nacet caimeseackss cenetant-oe 15,397 | 7,187,107 | 467 59 
MEIEMIRUO =o oo once Soe s stctcs cen vesbasbsecteeeststesnees 16, 754 | 9, 238, 265 552 85 
Q. Have you made a careful inquiry so as to ascertain from the proper 


| anthorities information relative to the increase and condition of Glou- 
cester as compared with some other towns of the county of Essex ?—A. 
ave. 

Q. State these details for towns not engaged in fishing—A. The 
atement is as follows : 

oh ic Population of Lynn, 32,600; valuation, $28,077,793; $861 to 


ich inhabitant. , 
_ : 1870, Valuation, $20,927,115; increase in 5 years, $7,150,678. 
1875. Population of Haverhill, 14,682; valuation, $10,497,132; $70L 
each inhabitant. , 
1875. Population of Lawrence, 34,916; valuation, $24,117,373 ; $691 
to each inhabitant. 7 
_ 1875, Valuation of Beverly, $8,545,125; in 1870, $5,563,050; in- 
crease, $2,982,075. ; 
1875. Valuation of Marblehead, $4,058,610; in 1870, $3,115,300; in- 
| erease, $943,310. 
The above are all manufacturing places. Beverly and Marblehead 
Were formerly large fishing-ports. 
163 F 


| ee Si 


a 


2594 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Lynn isa place which has nothing to do with the fishing busi- 
ness ?—A. Yes; it isa manufacturing town, and is engaged in the shoe 
business. 

Q. Beverly has entirely ceased to be interested in the fishing busi- 
ness?—A. Yes; almost. It has now gone into the shoe business. 

Q. Marblehead was the first fishing-place in the United States ?—A. 

I think so; but it is gone now into manufacturing. Beverly and Mar- 
blehead were formerly large fishing-places, but the towns above men- 
tioned are now all manufacturing places. 

Q. Did you make up statistics in reference to the fishing business for 
the Centennial 7—A. I did. 

Q. And you spent a good deal of time on them ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And they were presented to the Centennial Commission?—-A. Yes. 

Q. Can you give us some statistics with relation to the fishing-towns | 
of Massachusetts, showing what the effect of this different system of | 
fishing in the bay has been, as far as you can, on tbe fishing business 
of Massachusetts ?—A. I have a table showing the valuation of the prin- | 
cipal fishing-ports of Massachusetts other than Gloucester. It is as — 
follows: 


than Gloucester, in 1875, as compared with 1870. 


Table showing the valuation of the principal fishing ports or towns of Massachusetts, other | 
| 
| 

| 


Place. Year. | Valuation. | Decrease. | Increase. 
| 
Barmstablesseccn. cost cc se ceed Soda sevncdddcawecsccassnoasesee 1870 | $2, 657, 100 | 
1875 | 2,614, 700 | 
ee e407 400 ft 
Chatham... <acc0s tac cess ccs coe do cacec at baceoueuvaewnsescevesee 1870 1, 007, 442 | 
1875 770, 334 | 
246, 108 
Provincetown 2-625 ca v dacs cc Sacecesddisecsawnsnecuseweoores a: 1870 | 1,981, 161 | 
1875 1, 844, 191 | 
ee 2437070 
Brewster sic. cisco faveecua cadebacvokveccdeeweretreesrcsceenous -1870 747, 849 
1875 622, 104 
—_——_——|_ 125, 745 
WATMOUGR 55 ot oe ace eek wo sneosadetsetosdiwer stews vueesac 1870 | 1, 412, 017 
1875 1, 402, 248 
9, 769 
Nand wich s2o23225 55s cweccccscessesacwes segs + eacoseeecsoss cece 1870 | 1, 405, 100 
1875 1, 398, 950 
ee eG 150) | 
Dennis rc2cssc csc aes cissesk oe o52 53 anaes aete ease esos daaseneets 1870 | 1, 478, 204 | 
1875 | 1, 448, 587 
30, 617 | 
Orleans) nse Seeis ce eee or ee See conte e oonk ooo ee 1870 520, 621 
1875 422, 364 | 
: DOS 
Wéellieet Gusccs. to ccccteencen coco oe LeaiSGeese ees ecessacicaes, 1875 877, 149 
1370 812, 849 
$64,300 | 
Total decrease in valuation, cight ports ...465500- ccocsccalsacodcfacessccccucs 697,116 | sss .0e 
Gainin one porticss.ssscckswese loca ccs ceb es ocss se cancun leccealacccsuacocws ts ase = 64, 300 | 


Q. You have taken every fishing town in that particular State ?—A. 
Yes; every town which I knew had vessels engaged in fishing in the 
whole commonwealth, except Gloucester. | 

(. Were these statistics made up by you before you knew anything | 
about the meeting of this Tribunal, and without any reference to it | 
whatever 7--A. These were made up here from the books which I have | 
With me. 

@. And you made up yonr statistics for the purpose of the Conta! 
nial ?--A. Yes; and I have also other statistics. | 

(. You were very thorough in your preparation of them for the Cen- 
tennial?—A. I tried to be so. | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - ‘2595 


Q. The original census from which these statistics were obtained, 
were prepared without any reference to this Tribunal ?—-A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever made up any statistics relative to the shore and 
guif fisheries, showing the difference between the American shore fish- 
ery and the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery 7—A. Yes, and the statement 
is as follows: 


Number of fishing vessels in Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery and the American shore 


mackerel jishery. 

; Barrels. 
1869.—194 vessels in gulf, average catch 209 barrels. -..........--...--------- 40,546 
151 vessels off shore, average catch 222 barrels .......---....---...--. 33, 552 

Mackerel caught by boats and sume Eastern vessels packed in Glou- 
MBO! che cledenwoce soca cees ae «Me Mtena ca nuwadbuin's caciacieniucsciaa say LO; Re 
Mackerel inspected in Gloucester... .. ........-.----.0-202-- 93, 126 
1875.—58 vessels in gulf, average catch 191 barrels........-.......---------- 11,078 
117 vessels American shore, average catch 409 barrels .............-.- 47, 853 
58, 931 


The average catch is based on' the average catch of 84 vessels from 17 firms in 1869 ; 
and 28 vessels in bay and 62 vessels off American shore from 20 firms in 1375. These 
firms have done better than the rest. 


Q. You do not, I suppose, include in this statement any but vessels— 
it has nothing to do with boat-fishing 7—A. No. 

Q. Will you state from what source you have made up these statis- 
tics ?—A. The information concerning the vessels which fished in the 
gulf, and those which fished off our shore, I obtained and tabulated for 
the information of Gloucester when I was town clerk, in 1869, and the 
report for 1875 was procured for Centennial purposes—not by myself, 
but by some one who did his work well. 

Q. Can you say, as a matter of belief, that these statistics were made 

up for Centennial purposes and not with reference to this Tribunal ?— 
A. Yes; I believe that is the case. 

Q. From what sources were those for 1875, for instance, taken ?—A. 
The catch was taken from the reports of the number of firms I men- 

| tioned. 

Q. To how many firms do you refer?—A. These include the most suc- 

' cessful firms, George Steele, &c. 

*Q. Those are the firms that had been the most successful, whether on 
| our shore or in-the Gulf of St. Lawrence; which are considered to be 
| the most successful firms in Gloucester?—A. George Steele, Leighton & 
' ©o., Dennis & Ayer, and Smith & Gott. . 

Eg These are generally considered to be the most successful firms ?—A. 
| Les. 

_Q. Were they all included in this return ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The tonnage of the vessels was somewhat larger in 1875 than it 

| Was in 1869 7—A. I think not. I think it was about the same. 
QQ, In order that the Commission may understand whether these 
| Gloucester merchants, when making their statements here, are guessing 
| at what they say, or have absolute data to go upon and know what they 
are about, you have, at our request, made an examination of. the books 
of one of the firms?—A. I have examined the books of the most suc- 
cessful firm engaged in the bay mackerel fishery. 

Q. That is the firm of Mr. Steele?—A. Yes. I did this of my own 
= because I wanted the Commission to see how these books are 
| kep 


2596 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Will you produce these books ?—A. I have the trip-book, which I 
have numbered one, for the years since 1858 and 1859. Their previous 
books were burned in the great fire at Gloucester in 1864. I have the 
trip-books for the years extending from 1858 to 1876, inclusive, 19 years. 

Q. What is the meaning of the term “trip-book”?—A. This is a book 
with which the voyage is made up and settled with the crew, showing the 
parts which belong respectively to the vessel and the crew. The voy- 
ages of all the schooners from 1858, as long as they were running, are 
drawn out. I have prepared an abstract from these books; also a sum- 
mary of that abstract and an explanation of this summary. This is a 
summary of all the voyages made by the fishing-vessels of George 
Steele from 1858 to 1877; it shows the time employed in the cod and 
halibut fishery, and those engaged in the mackerel fishery off the Amer- 
ican coast and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, giving the amount and value 
of their catches, &c. (For summary of the voyages see Appendix to 
Evidence.) 

Q. All this you were able to take from these books which the firm 
kept for their own convenience 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What is that ?—A. As you all well know, in Gloucester, our fish- 
ing-fleet meets with a great many disasters, and a great deal of money 
has to be given in charity to widows and orphans of fishermen; and so 
for a few years back it has been the practice among vessel-owners to 
deduct, with the consent of the crews, of course, from the gross earnings 
of their vessels, one-quarter of one per cent. to be given to the widows’ 
and orphans’ fund. 

Q. The owners contribute half and the men half?—A. Yes; and this 
is put in as a stock charge. 

Q. Is it not the case that the number of widows and orphans occa- 
sioned by disasters in the fishing business has been large?—A. O, yes. 
The statement continues : 


The amount of the ‘‘stock expenses” is found on above summary by doubling the 
vessel’s share, which adds the crew’s share, and taking that amount from the “gross 
stock,” this leaves the amount of the “‘ stock expenses.” 

By dividing the “ value of the catch ” by the.“ barrels caught” (packed), this gives 
the average value of the mackerel, exclusive of packing. 

The number of ‘ vessels employed” in each class of fishery, shows the number en- 
gaged in that particular tishery some part of the year, and the “ number fitted” gives 
the total number of vessels owned and fitted each year. 

It will be found by the “summary of voyages,” that from 1858 to 1865, inclusive, the 
average catch of his vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was 338 packed barrels of 
mackerel, which sold, exclusive of the packing and barrels, for $11.10 per barrel of 
200 pounds. From 1865 to 1872, inclusive, the average catch was 280 packed barrels, 
sold for $14.40, average price per barrel. From 1872 to 1876, inclusive, the average 
ca a 223 barrels, sold at an average price of $10.01 per barrel, exclusive of barrel 
and pac ; 

‘Tue ere time of each vessel employed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel 
fishery was 4 months 13 days by 6.3 vessels, yearly for 17 years. The average catch 
was 304 packed barrels, the average price sold for, $12 per barrel. The vessels’ share for 
anes years, $372.66 per month each ; the average share to the crews, $24.34 per month 
each. . 

‘Lhe average time employed in the cod and halibut fisheries was 6 months 18 days 
each year, for 19 years, by 8.21 vessels. Average vessel’s share per month, $352.21. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 


Q. I thought that in your previous statement of month by month, it) 


was $300 and something ?—A. Yes; it was $372.66 in the gulf. 
Q. And what was it in the cod-fishing 7—A. $352.21. Mr. Steele’s ves- 


sels have been unusually successful in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, } 


| 
| 
| 
1 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2597 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. And the most so of any 7—A. Yes; thatisa well-known fact. The 
statement continues: ; 

Average share to crews, average 9.5 men, $38.12 per month. 

The average time employed in the American shore mackerel fishery was 2 months 
20 days each year for 9 years. The average catch per year for 2.3 vessels was 239 
barrels of mackerel ; the average price which was in years of low prices was $7.10 per 
barrel, exclusive of barrel and packing. Average share to vessels per month, $310.60. 
Crew’s average share, $20.70 each per month. 

The average time the vessels were employed in all the fisheries was 9 months 14 days 
by 9.1 vessels yearly for 19 years, for which time the average share for each vessel was 

228.08, or $340.92 per month. The crew’s shares, average share for each man, was 

264.33, or $27.83 per month to 12.25 men, the average crew for each vessel, 

Q. The cod fishery seemed in one respect to be superior to and more 
profitable than the mackerel fishery, and in another less so. The men’s 
shares were more in the cod than they were in the mackerel fishery ?— 
A. The former is attended with a good deal less expense and requires 
fewer men. 

Q. In the mackerel fishery a larger proportion of barrels is re- 
quired ?—A. The proceeds of mackerel-fishing are to be divided among 
15 men, while in the cod fishery these are to be shared amongst some 9 
men. 

Q. Will you select some one vessel from Steele’s trip book and show 
in detail how it is kept?—A. Ihave here the method of making up a 
voyage of a Grand Banker using fresh bait and a Grand Banker using 
salt bait. The statement for the former is as follows: 


Schooner Pharsalia. , 


' Sailed for Grand Bank May 29, 1875, arrived at Gloucester September 6, 1875. Time 
absent, 3 months 8 days. 


84,685 lbs. large cod, at 23 cents...... Suigsesseeas $2, 222 98 
2,205 lbs. small cod, at 1p; cents ......... 22. ---- 28 94 
13,510 lbs. damaged cod, at 1 cent...............- 135 10 
6,100 lbs. fletches (halibut), at 4 cents............ 244 00 
rete, Oil, BY AS GORI... 2.0. cauvascases savane 87 75 
Number galls. blubber, at 0.......2....-.... bayay 00 
2,718 17 (Gross stock.) 
Less stock charges ...-....... Piddede <sccae 301 42 (Stock charges.) 
2)2,417 35 (Net stock.) 
1,208 67 
ft Exd. 
: (Examined by owner of vessel.) 
- . 
,~¥ Gans nomen: Net shares. 
310 | Samuel Aug. Keene (master).......... 893 54 | 
Seeeee) Androw Clark. ...........- 22.22 cece. 93 54 | 
_ 381 | Michael Howlett ..............--..---- 93 54 | 
YW Memnal MOLSANG ..-5-< .-2 556 cecess ome 93 54 | 
"® MWyiam Gosbeos.......-..050...-0585 93 54 | 
PRMAREONDSON con aek cy -- == -anncs-cocaahh 93 54 | 2)$2,718 77 Gross stock. 
418 | William Albert Guptill 4-............ 23 39 | ~ Se 
417 | Malcolm A. McKinnon } ...........--. 70 15 12) 1,359 38 (4 Gross stock.) 
mem Panenios AUstN. -.......--csccescccoes 93 54 -———- 
Ooh: Welsh ........... ..ncscceesneoes 93 54 | 113 28 Gross share. - 
418 MCMV EU. 2c. 3-ssacadteoses sede 93 54 | Deduct 1974 Expense. 
| 56 | George Somers .-............-.----020- 93 54 , 
468 | Alex. McLoud 3............2..0.2.-2- 7015) ° 93 54 Net share. 
469 | Thomas Welsh 3 ...................2-- 23 39 
a HES CS RODAAB) ls <5 oa fun pees ee sce 86 11 | 
| : SURMISE «AAO Pe celiac ohawoce oct baa ss ance: 
soe 9. wuasidotag ccc ed 1, 208 67 | ‘ 


* 


2598 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Schooner Pharsalia. 


5 tons ice, at $3, from Webster (bought in Gloucester 


for keeping Dale) ere .2 3 coe oe eecseneeeeess $15 00 
1 ton ice at St. Peter’s, at $3.50, gold, at $1.15 (value 
of $1 in United States CULTENGOY )) 222 s265i.- ses ee 4 03 Cr. Keene (master. 
5 tons ice at Burene, at $15, Bens at $1.15 ($3 gold 
per ton) ------ .----------+ 0-200 -- eee 2 o-e eee 17 25 Cr. Keene (master. ) 
23, tons ice at St. John’s, at $21.50, gold, at $1.15 ’ 
($10 gold per ton) ........---.-----.-.+-+-+------ 24 73 
53 tons ice at Arichat, at $16.50, gold, at $1.15 ($3 
gold) per.ton)=.3s2-8eco- a ccace eee cea ee ese 18 98 Cr. Keene. 
65 ariel bait at Fortune Bay, at $30, gold, at $1.15- 34 50 Cr. Keene. 
55 barrels bait at Fortune Bay, at $55, gold, at $1.15. 63 25 Cr. Keene. 
13 barrels caplin, at St. John’s, $3.50, gold, at $1.15... 4 03 Cr. Keene. 
20 barrels herring, at St. John’s, $20, gold, at $1.15-- 23 00 Cr. Keene 
12 _ nippers, at 60 cents (worn on hands in fish- Ee 
a a ee a if 
Widow? and orphans’ fund ( of 1 per cent. off gross 
BtOCK) 22 Ses ee ates Sona ctet a cee ee eeses 7 00 
Sbutts forousaet S3c--- 20-6 nec cc cceen eeose se -/ 15°00 
5 iron-bound barrels for O11; $12.50 52s 255-3. ks jccce 12 50 
Gauging-fee on oil, 75 cents; 2 hogshead tubs, $7 ... 7 75 
ee St. John’ 8, $1.15; consul’s fees, St. Johas, 
POLLS siete oa Sea eee eE oa cose cee 4 33 
Entering and clearing at St. John’s, $4.60. .......... 4 60 
Commissions on bait-money at St. John’s, $11.62 .... 11 62 
P..rt charges paid by Keene at St. Pierre, $5, gold... 5 75 
Light dues paid by Keene at Fortune Bay, $17.54, me 
POA AS Soe sce moors Soe eee Mae aes 20 17 
Telegram paid by Keene to Arichat, 63 cents gold... 73 


2)301 42 Stock charges. 


4 SUOOK GNSI ROS 2-0: oe ace oct e co ccee pa eee ee 150 71 
Chronometer lire. ..565 5s isan cescccecuawenncsvaccwas 12 00 Cr., Sept. 10, 1875. 
4 dozen ‘condensed: milk .2..5..2s25s0.0-sssceess s-s ese 14 00 
Towing, May'26,/1875 2-2 sc <6 cos ece ee caccocces. cons 5 00 paid Aug. 19, 1875. 
Labor on ballast Swedis shade sme debe ces coe aaoeee cece 23 50 
~ Gun, $2.50; caps, 60 cents; powder; $4. <c253 222-25 7410 
Tarring FIQQWI Py soe ceca soles cscssceseseet cet e nee oe 6 00 
Elwell: -moedisine: chesti-.- =.) 22520 Jo 28e es secs Sootes 5 00 
1,500 barrels (gallons) water here ......--..--.-.---- wae 
2 feet wood, sawing and splitting -......--.--..---. 1 00 
Waterat. St: Johnist. 222 223-5 ea ee aee 43: 
Water paid by Keene (master).............-...---- 64 Cr. Keene 


12)236 82 Crew’s expenses. 


Shareof expenses: =~ 3-222 casece-2s eo foe 19 74 (for each of crew.) 


This copy was made from the trip-book of George Steele, of Gloucester, Mass. 
George F. Winter, bookkeeper, to show the method of settling the voyage of a “Grand 
Banker” that used fresh bait wholly. Abbreviations and other matters are explained 
in parentheses, thus (_). 

Attested. 

DAVID W. LOW. 


Q. Our men use nippers with their lines ?—A. Yes; and some of the 
hands are marked three-quarters, and some one-quarter; those are boys 
who pay only that proportion of the crew’s charges. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. What is the meaning of gross expenses, $86.11, following the 
men’s expenses in the book ?—A. That is the amount of those expenses 


on that side; several items which go to make up the sum total are < 


thus included. 
_Q. Nothing is said about provisions ?—A. No; the cost of provisions 


.% 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2599 


is entered on the owner’s ledger; this is a trip-book, showing the set- 
tlement of the voyages with the crew. 

Q. You have read from that statement that so many codfish of differ- 
ent kinds produced the gross amount of $2,718; but there is no deduc- 
tion made from that which I notice.—A. There is $301.22. 

Q. For provisions?—A. That $1,208.67 is credited on the owner’s 
ledger, and the schooner has her share of the voyage. 

Q. And out of that comes the provisions ?—A, The debtor side of the 
led ger shows the cost of provisions and outfit. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. I see that you divide that by 12 and 14?—A. There were on board 
boys who paid only one quarter of a man’s share of the expenses. 

Q. You have there charges for scraping and tarring, splitting wood, 
&c. Why are these charged to the crew ?—A. Because in former times 
the crew did all that work themselves. 

Q. They came aboard the vessel and worked to fit her?—A. Yes. 

Q. They hoisted in and hoisted out, tarred the rigging, split the wood, 
and all that, themselves ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They have dropped that on the understanding that they have to 
pay for it?7—A. Yes. 

Q. That has been the usage ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well understood ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Before you leave that, I want to ask you in reference to an item 
there, “damaged codfish.”—A. 13,150 pounds of damaged cod, at 1 
cent, $135.10. 

Q. Why should there be this damaged codfish? What is the cause 
of it?—A. Well, I have my own opinion of the cause. , 

Q. What do you believe to be the cause ?—A. I believe the cause is 
going in so much for fresh baic. 

Q. How should that damage the codfish ?—A. My opinion is that the 
Salters salted it with the idea that they would not go in so much, and 
didn’t put so much salt on it. When she went into port so much, going 
into the warm water it heated. 

Q. So that if a vessel intends to go into harbor there ought to be a 


little different proportion ?—A. Certainly. 


Q. That is coming out of the cold water on the Banks?—A. Yes. 
By Sir Alexander Galt: ee 
Q. Before you leave this schooner, I would like to see what the result 


| of that trip was to the vessel. I mean how much it cost the owners to 


provision her, and how much they paid out of that $1,208.67 that went 
to the vessel’s share.—A. I have made up a profit and loss account. 
Of course, I had no such thing as a ledger to work from, but I had the 
trip-books, and I made up an account of Mr. Steele’s trips in the bay, 
from the time they commenced in 1858 to 1876, for seventeen years. 

_ Q. What I wanted was, without going into the particulars of these 
voyages, to know what the actual-cash result was.—A. It is pretty 
hard to reckon that. 

Q. Of course, if you can say nothing more about it you need not dwell 
‘upon it—A. I cannot, because the manner of keeping the books does 
not show the particular voyages of any one vessel. The charges against 
the schooner are all entered on the debtor side and the result of the 
voyage on the creditor side. 

‘By Mr. Dana: . 

Q. Does not the book of original entries show what the charges in 
the ledger are made up of ?—A. I have what the outfit of a mackerel 


Catcher cost. 


x 
4 
Hi a. 
i . = 


2600 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Sir ALEXANDER GALT. No; not a mackerel catcher. 
WITNEss. [ have a Grand Banker, but not any particular voyage. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Sir Alexander Galt asked you whether you had not the data by 
which you could make up an exact profit and loss account of this par- 
ticular voyage 7—A. I could if I had time: I could make that voyage 
the basis in making up such an account from facts which I carry in my 
mind in regard to the general course of the business. 

Sir ALEXANDER GALT. That would not be exactly what I would like 
to have. 

By Mr. Dana: 


Q. That trip was in 1875 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, I suppose the object of Sir Alexander Galt’s question was to 
ascertain what the cost of provisions was as one item.—A. I can give 
that. 

Q. From some other book?—A. From a paperI have. Not that par- 
ticular vessel, however. 

Q. You haven’t brought his ledger ?—A. No, only his trip-book. 

Q. You made this up after you arrived here?—A. Yes. All these 
statistics I made up sinee I arrived here. I had only those materials. 
I didn’t have time in Gloucester. 

Q. If you were there it could easily be done ?—A. Not for one par- 
ticular voyage. 

Q. I suppose the provisions, being bought wholesale, are not charged 
to any particular vessel ?—A. Well, each vessel’s outfit is charged 
to her. 

Q. But not when they are bought by the owners; that is mercantile 
business ?—A. No. That does not affect any one vessel. When they 
are put aboard any one vessel they are charged to that vessel. 

Q. That appears where ?—A. In his day-book and ledger. 

Q. Now, you have given the result of a cod-fishing voyage, using 
fresh bait. Have you a similar statement of a voyage where salt bait 
was used ?—A. Yes; I have. The following is the statement: 


Schooner Madam Roland. 


5 barrels slivers (porgie), at $8, including barrel from William Gard- 


NOLS eevee a Salsas oe ase ana meee noe ee ene eect $40 00 
5 barrels slack salted clams, at $11, including barrel from M. Knowl- 
GON Seas catcasicig us ciadcdiacac cer ewmeriiwecacusasaisaas ctineasas sucses 55 00 
6 pairs nippers, at 60 cents (worn on hands in fishing) ....--.,----.- 3 60 
1 butt for oil (hogshead) ...-.. ------ .--222 0-22 one eee eee eee eee 3 00 
Bee paid for Pane Oblate) csecnsccasetiac = sciesocecseoues eas 1 20 
lobarreles. ccs ties cs .cccseeecensatecas sccose ees tece aieseeiss 24 00 
Widew, and:orphans’ fonds. 20 4c. ..odacie- coe oienacesen Mecaccr 6 90 
11 water-barrels used up, at $1 cr i ace ae 16 50 
2) 150 20 stock ebs. 
Crews expenses. One-half stock charges.........-.- $75 10 
Baitie: socecics2 ns ceeelvocass's ae $3 96 | 12 gallons molasses for beer ....-.. 
Nip pers! <<. 5-2 a sere oo cee 3 oe 15 "> 5 barréis hopes. ... <.5 sso ees 1 2 
Oilevarrelsycnsso<. scsacsetes saeoe ~. 1 80 Half-barrel ...-- 2 sclw eee phacsagh 75 
Ganging. aViiid os ccitiss cade soos 5 155 barrels water... .-.<e sine seu 11 00 
Widow and orphans .............. 29 | 4 feet wood, S. & S. (sawing and 
BOOP. canis Setters oeioda cise see eacase 77 splitting) eee ee eee 2 of 
NE RGON 20525 pies cas coke ne cuee 92 Towing, August 22, 1873... .-.. 3 00 
WOOO oe cua cagsissdwam sane pees sees 17 Towing, October 11, 1873........ 3.00 
DOWIE sido gebeneidscads seek shee 50 i 
Crew’s expenses ...-....--.. 103 30 
8 61 Share of expenses (12 men).. 8 61 


—- 


~ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | 2601 
12 hands, all share alike, except .........-.--.------ ------ 2) 2,758 27 gross stoek. 
John Kaffery, who is on wages. .....--220 .2ce weeene cence 12) 1,379 13 
At $50 per month, from August 15, 1873, to.....-......--- ° 114 92 gross share. 
October 15, 1873, 2-months, equal to $100...............-. is ¢ 61 expenses out. 


106 31 net share. 


The above was copied from trip book of George Steel, of Gloucester, Mass., George 
F Winter, bookkeeper, to show the method of settling the voyage of a Grand Banker 
that used salt bait, with what fresh bait they caught on the Banks. Abbreviations 
and other terms used are explained in parenthesis, thus ( ). 

Attest: 

‘ DAVID Wie LOW. 
Schooner Madam Rotand. 


 Sailed for Grand Banks August 26, 1873. Arrived at Gloucester October 10, 1873. 
Time absent, one month fourteen days. 


81,400 barrels large split fish (cod), at 2% .......--.. 2-0. ---- $2,238 50 

23,870 barrels smnall split fish (cod), at 14 ..... Ne scsmeenewecs 328 21 

110 barrels fletches (halibut), at 7...... Pigs becs ssocpsceses P 7 70 

. 2,574 41 

SEMLONS 0817 04-56 CONUS 005 scsuscsnteduwecnass edacks caus 183 86 
2,758 27 gross stoek. 

Less stock charges ...... -. .-+--.-+2 seeeee see eee cone eens cone 150 20 

; 2, 608 07 net stock. 
1,304 03 ; 

eater Crew’s names. 

ib. Millard VO Hartis’--2.-- no dpceeee wecamecare $106 31 paid. 

Se: MOIMCIOs 2... scrosscsulswcionsscceedaecce 106 31 

Mea vonn Reed--2225 -sscs6 so caso ws cece ssc ncoe cece 106 31 

eee Williamnts Cammings........2-ccc%edces sences ce 106 31 

ED WOTN TLNAIOY os obo cwncag pases sepaun ncaa 106 31 

RSID SOG ong ncc ane asedeaeqgcnensucdeoia 106 31 

154, Charles Cogill....... Pe hk ee ey he ae en 106 31 

84. Alexander Muise 106 31 

158. Daniel W. Gerry 106 31 


paid October 31, 1873, 


on wages. 
SN TIGEOG Ss oo. axis a sad cana t ee cas sucess 0610 
PE CHOOD 5.500034 2246.24 6caeanepdsas cave sade 106 31 
oie Sundries, for beer...... ...-.. --- peiseweenss~ = 9 20 
MESON (O50 8o52 ocSa ee wc cisssecdteeedans secs 11 00 
SIME soo ogo Sos crccu coon es Kdcisbvaeegasece: sss ae 2 00 
MRE 3 fda onae yawn ddowhapmieeiama cose a=s 6 00 
) Balance .-..-.. .-.. .-------- 2-0 eee Richi siscenee ii 
" 


= By Mr. Dana: 
_ Q. One voyage is for four months and the other only one month and 
a half 1—A. Yes. 
_ Q. What appears to be the reason. that the voyage on which fresh 
bait was nsed was so much longer than the one on which the salt bait 
‘Was used? Were they fitted for voyages of different lengths or was it 
because of the time taken going in and out ?—A. That is the way I ac- 
count forit. They usually fit for the same length of time. 


t. pa” eae 


2602 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Now, we have had one voyage for cod with fresh bait and one with 
salt bait; have you any other ?—A. I have a statement of a mackerel- 


catcher. It is as follows: 


Schooner Oliver Eldridge. 


55 barrels slivers (porgies), at $6.50, from Eclipse lot....-.-.. $357 50 
7 barrels clams, at $6, from last year ...-.....--... ---...... 42 00 
Difference between skipper’s account and wharf account (see 


explanationi@) sscceneecen a: sees nee hose ne eeceeloeclon ie 6 00 
Harbor dues at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, $1--..-.-.- 1 20 
Widow and orphans’ fund ..-..-- Beate enn ee sates aaa oibee ss 8 86 
415 56 stock charges. 
Crew’s expenses. 4 stock charges . ...-.....--.. 207 73 
DBSIG Son occ tetsewon ee eeee Stee ee $1406; 4:dozenmilks 2.5 cccecs cos : 14 00 
Error, 21 cents; widow and or- Hoisting ballast ........---... 75 
phans, 31 cents ........... sence 52 | Towing, November 3, 1875 .... 5 00 
Milki= so. Sab ael saicateteeee ses cenrae SS: Rigging fy-jibic a --sioce sass 8 10 
POWING 8o52 cones ess cee es cose cae 39 | Taking off sails, &c.....-.---- 3 00 
Bly-jibiesccscicsewssssseuese se cece 56 | Seraping and tarring...-..-... 8 00 
Sail’ so ce sece ese es Diseases esc 21 | Elwell medicine-chest.......-. 6 20 
Scraping and tarring.....- ener 57 | Hoisting mackerel ............ 4 50 
Medicine-chéat :..525..52csc osc 44)) 1G:barrels water:::..:-s<2tsss2- 3 20 
FLOIRUING sorcerer occa cee aes 3 32 | 2 feet T. and T. wond ........ : 1 00 
Water, 23 cents; wood, 7 cents... 30'|| Extra to cook... =. <35:,-<s<sscc 10 00 
Cook-2 2 csaesss sclessocasesacens 8 48 | Cook’s average, 16 shares ..... 110 74 
26 83 143 (382 27 
26 83 
Cock has average share and half his fish and $10—14} shares. 
Mess No. 1 Mess No. 2 Mess No. 1 Mess No. 2. 3 : 
ae 
: : : : ~2 
E E E g | g3 
Crew’s names. ig $ $ a4 
gle] 3ielée| oilal/se| 3 jsale| F es 
E\e/2 E/E 2 /E1/2] 2 BI] 2 | 28 
gsi 2/18/22 1818) 2 jgis| ei eé 
Qo Oo |Ri& Oo |R | A i) a) io) a) 
Wm. Crawley and John Hick..}....|.-..|...... se eeiliperecil cwatate 30} 43) $241 72) 7 25/$42 75) $284 47 
Thomas Crawley, one-half ..... ducie|seoclona dma ACCE eee see ae 9| 148} 77 92) 2 66) 13 9& 91 90 
John Murphy, three-quarters. |....)....|...... Set pee ae 6| 168} 54 72/ | 126; 15 78] 70 50 
John Collins 4-25-sececa nee Sead|smesloeesee aoe Bed Beer 11) 66 9064) 2] 26| 12 78) 103 42 
Maurice Hickey, one-quarter ..j....|..-.|.....-. Veaclwawelesecer 7) 61) 5& 444 1|) 95) & 85} 67 29 
Mike Coughlan, one-half ....... ecelesvsloceeeelccslideclescses * 5} 159} 46 36) 1) 99) 897] 5533 
Allan Cameron’ :2.55.%scsecce: waa lnseleeeans eeco[scceclessace 15) 82) 123 28; 3) 137) 22 11) 145 39 
Timothy. Kelley). .0.cs.cencs- esbeacapaceees SEY bent eter 5) 95) 43 80) 1/ 168) 11 04) 54 84 
Thomas Green .-...-...--..-- sees easfesces Se Oe eee 12| 118} 100 72} 3] 19] 18 527} 119 29 
Jos. Goslin, jr --- Sen|soee|sodece eedlesonlseees 11; 39} 89 56} 2 142) 16 26] 105 $2 
L. J. Dias, cook .. Pos (nee boc Borer CEE Borel BEE 10} 192} 8768) 1) 97) 891] 96 59 
Charles Cantrell............... EPP PS Beret aeons |sceee 12} 29) 9716) 1/118 9 54) 106 70 
Nicholas J. O'Brien...........- Pace oou perce Seiet| srmcispacec. os 14) 50} 114 00) 2 97) 1491) 128 91 
James Dooley. 2.2002 525028, 9} 180|$99 00|....) 160 $4 80} 3] 50) 2600) 1/105 9 15) 138 95 
Michael Murray 2.2256 022555=- 9} 183) 99 15) 5) 40; 31 20)....) 2 8} ...| 90) 2 70) 133 13 
Jonn Barret. c22-< deta ts-eseces 5} 32) 51 60) 1 100) CORI RSA Bers Rsorerce 1) 90} 8 70} 69 30 
SoReal aed. 2s av ee 24) 195249 75,7 “100 45 00] 156) 10211, 252 08) 37, 100 225 001,771 83 


Schooner Oliver Eldridge. 


Sailed for the Bay of St. Lawrence August 5, 1875, (Absent 2 months and 28 days.) 


Arrived at Gloucester November 2, 1875, 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2603 
Packg. off. 
24 barrels, 195 pounds mess No, 1 mackerel, at 20........-... $499 50 

7 barrels, 100 pounds mess No. 2 mackerel, at 12.......-.--- 90 00 
156 barrels, 102 pounds mess No, 1 mackerel, at 16........-..--. 2,504 16 
37 barrels, 100 pounds mess No. 2 mackerel, at 12....-.--..--. 450 00 

226 97 3,543 66 (grs. stock.) 

Pens Stock: CHArGOS so c0 cous <sceccssivenss 415 56 (net stock.) 
2)3, 128 10 
1,564 05 


Mess-mackerel are mackerel with heads and tails cut off and scraped, losing in 
paula pounds on the barrel by the operation, but increasing the value of the mack- 
er . 


Fens. Crew's names. ee 
SOR HIG Crawley:<c 2 on1-c<.s2n asec oatiseeac oc be enlence cece esecioccenees. | BLLOCAD 
BEEEORY TICK OV. on: = 2 acic'ss\coccicnlcs te cce kaneis cue de eaeccemenecwen ees 115 40 
BEE E TONGS: CLA WICY. (2 \..wiccos cccwan cuagisnmeau sae eccciceeossce ikle Mess ania 78 48 
enon Murphy 225. cs<:cs~ ncuce cece ewes PAsioee a tacts sens oeewa seleric ows 50 38 
Mere © OMIM sais 5c0%sc cacitetise os Wau eeslsncs cst cas ieee soces ccs cece ae 76 59 
BEERAOULICOSTCKCV Tico on acc e we vc a ma ane bac en ae Oonls Sule visa coe ste enacts 60 58 
memmionael Coughlan, +. 2. vo... ssccuomeecensicus Ccloced Ceeseeseeeeciseoues 41 91 
ee an) CAMOLTON 3c 52. osc ocssjsacetese onee sen ccwieees Beu sien sce's'as sicclosiee 118 56 
MERE LINOUNY KOUOY ot.) wo omas calc bot ve cales eee es seinen ncawalsatensieces 48 13 
fee? NOMSS Greene oso e ose Soe ocnc cio Selon oan demos SaiseeSecleueciaseec seas 92 46 
SE OSE PU GOSIIN Ps. are cis osieacicaalesices pide sla cane clecatiscesucseevicencs 78 99 
PL BULB i DIAS; COOK. az.c0 sacslencclcesc ec srlecscseaseleneence waueee 190 50 
MCSD STIONIC ANUIOl! s.7os tesa cie ote ecce, ioe eos tee sire ow Lees AS eb oibeiccracieace 79 87 
BN IGhOLAS I. OBION sss csi cnicse wace occ eweeiessais scot asesese sees a 102 08 
MES ARN OS DOOOVia~ cso cce ena as cece wediatccsier eee sce oc ssarcscscsee 112 12 
MICHAGL MUITAY.-co6~ cs ccicciscindes socelsnc nse cece dcsccs sae sees acmece 106 30 
MORN DATTOUG sc. cise cosa cca cawecccelce sal cca acess ccuk welcews EOE eae ees 42 47 
MKNS He -Mballactl7oscents acces eoes oo occ eh aes eae etc aas cs aesece cons 14 75 
MOWIN neo sil Fi, 86.10 cacrad snares ehces sue weeetie nen. ecacencs ess 13 10 
Salle SS. AC: OG CAT: BO cease cor cee cedansepas soe cacsadeeetaees suas 11 00 
Medicine-chest, $6.20 ; hoisting, $4.50 .... 2-2. 02-220 0-2 oe eo ene ene 10 70 
Vater; $3.20 >: WO0ds Ol. jun sos ccaaeclocasisellices sasines cmisccvisaescwicices 4 20 
MOIGNOO coc cocc es ceases sebleccsemeseechiehe soeleceeer eee eacnecesees 8 
¢ 1,564 05 


The difference between skipper’s account and wharf account is explained as follows: 
The skipper or master keeps account as the different catches of his crew are weighed 
off. If the account of the packed barrels, after they are rolled out on the wharf, dis- 

with the skipper’r, the value has to be charged or credited in gross stock, as it 
| falls short or overruns. 

_ This “ bay trip” was copied from Trip Book of George Steele, of Gloucester, Mass. 
| George F. Winter, bookkeeper, to show the method of settling the voyage of a mack- 
| erel catcher. Abbreviations and other terms used are explained in brackets, thus (). 
Attest : DAVID W. LOW. 


i 


_ The mess-mackerel are mackerel with the heads and tails cut off, and the mackerel 
ear: losing in weight 26 pounds on the barrel, but increasing the value of the 
erel. : 


Q. There is an item for difference between skipper’s account and wharf 
account. How much was it on that voyage?—A. $6. 
_Q. What does that mean ?—A. It means this: In weighing out the 
mackerel the skipper keeps an account of the weight of each man’s lot, 
and when the mackerel are rolled out on the wharf, if there is a discrep- 
‘| aney between the actual weight of it as rolled out and the footings of 
the skipper’s account, of course they don’t know on which one of the 
erew it comes; so it is put in the gross stock account and divided among 


| 
1 


2604 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


all. If the balance is in the vessel’s favor it is credited, and if against 
the vessel it is charged in the stock account. 

Q. What is the history of the cook’s wages, coming out of the men ?— 
A. In former times the crew had to take turns in cooking, and then, of 
course, they had so many green cooks, and the fares were so poor that 
they made up their minds to have a cook. 

Mr. Daviess. Is there any special object in putting these in? 

Mr. DANA. It is only to give a specimen of the manner of making up 
the accounts for each kind of a voyage. 

Mr. Foster. It shows also the result of each kind of voyage. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. I suppose the same remark applies to the calculation of the ves- 
sel’s share in this case as in the other that you have given 7—A. Yes; 
just the same. I have here a statement showing the method of making 
up the voyage of a schooner to the Grand Banks. 


; By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Is this codfish ?—A. Yes; cod and halibut. We don’t get many 
halibut on the George’s in proportion to the halibut caught by those that 
go specially for it, and go into the deep water, where they are more 
likely to be found—about 200 or 300 fathoms. The statement is as fol- 


lows: 
Schooner Howard Steele. 


10 tons'ice.at $3, from Webster 2...-.256. ssc0.0cscececec ces $3000 
40 pounds bait at $1, bought by skipper, with cash carried ... 40 00 
Widew and: Orphans Hound .3-- 5. csccenucces ctcesce-- aes 1 61 
2)71 61 stock charges. 
Crews’ expenses. + stock charges........... 35 81 
NCGccceue cenceccueee $1 36 1 dozen condensed milk... 3 50 
IBRibee soe cts wec css 1 82 Scraping and tarring.-... . 5 00 
Widow and orphans’. . 07 12 barrels water ......---- 2 40 
Milk >. cen otics see 32 1-foot wood (sawing and 
Scraping and tarring. - 46 Splitting; &62)ises-c. ose= 50 
WV REE i552 nse mo sess 22 Cook's Wares: c= sn0 vonccs 29 34 
WOON aces eee sense 4 —_——. 
Cook. csss5 = sceees-s 2 67 11)76 55 crew’s expenses. 
6 96 Share of expenses .....-.. 6 96 
Fish. White halibut. | Gray halibut. 
3 > ~2 ° > ~e o 
S |gel/ec| & |Seleg| § & 
Crew’s names. ; g ES 23 ¢ ES Sele AG 5] 
5 Y | 2A gat aades %y 
2 Ba.jf/oe S S 38 
FI o \|asises| 4 |es)agi¢ 
Se | g | Sel Se] 21 Sees s 
Z §& |e’ (se! §& |e lar) 6d SB 
OG HIGGS eae nacese ol escca once se seasiae 311 | $25 61 66 5751 “Siw. 5252) sccens loan $27 32 
wames MAANGN..=2 2: -cccoccce sees: 397 | 32 69 30 26 78 5 4 06 33 53 
Thos.-K eliv’ ys; s-:252<<stas sacs =atGee es 375 | 30 87 64 55 WA |. <<. << | aaagele- cht 32 52 
War OINGH soc. 2. ccc ccccuswscseaeecnss 343 | 28 24 82 ai 213 8 7 il 30 48 
Dan. Donshu@ncs.=-:--<spssssendasse 305 | 25 11 18 15 45 30 26 39 25.95 
POND Megan ee so occcacsasss<eserss 325 | 26 76 28} 24 72 19 17| 3] wv 
Wich: J ohna@iiees<.s-<<cest «<-ccwses's 315 | 25 94 39 33 dll Pe 1Gih..s.02 26 93 
Axel Obeon sietic~~o=.seesesschpece- 320] 2635] 21] 18 54| 12 15| 27 04 
SOND LGWIBsserade <2 3s icuep ses e ene =* 416 | 34 25 30 26 7B} 155 1..-<50 1 99 37 02 
D. Kennisonys:.9.<2-- dibs: = ea82-- 365) 3005} 47] 40] 1290]...... yh i a 31 25 
John Brien, Mook 52.-< -444092-0685--2- 259 | 21 33 60 52 1 56 hh 17 23 06 
Total t. ./sden see ss she! 3,731 | 307 20| 485| 417/ 1251] 242|) 208/312] 3928 


> 


SE - - 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2605 


_ Average price of fish 16 46-100 cents each. Cook has average share, and half his fish 


s one share of all expenses. 
iled for George’s Bank August 7, 1875. Arrived at Gloucester August 20, 1875 


(absent 13 days). 


18,805 lbs. oe COG, Bu wi0-0 = spins: 6 ssi-dae ax 493. 63 
6,500 lbs. small cod, at 1 5-16....-....--...----- . 85. 31 
260 Ibs. pollack, at 5-8 pplewrabesShbas son decisteane 1. 62 
194 gal. livers, ET Sad CORR EPIRA RRORS TR 29. 10 
IRIE DAD ioe od osc asesss cdaacheyes < 4.75 
614. 41 
485 (less heads) = 417 lbs. white halibut, at 6..... 25. 02 
242 =208 Ibs. gray halibut, at 3 sdenee 6. 24 
145, 68 Gross stock. 
SE. CUATUORs 2 cave cacnscsssicnesuccupaee aes 71. 61 


2)574. 06 Net atic: 


287.03 Amt. vessel or crew’s share. 


Ledger page. Crew’s names. Net shares. 
SRA WE SSS aga suc ss aneisiee melrepiscritaams sesso secs cuae sa 20. 36 cr 
415: James Madden ..:.-...20..<sese sees Sioacareca es piswiaacsioues vece 26. 57 pd- 
AOR AT ROMAR GUY .c\5525 ciecwansarcaee cs cask wae aat Sacaasnessaas TR ee 
a6 “Maward: ONGi 3... sc. ccceet sbesee cscs ee be sce eee es cee wears 22,52 pd: 
415) Daniel Donahue 222452555 224esecusacs ce oe tes hasecuvloues sees 18. 99 pd: 
415; JON MPa. <2 m.2c ot sos aoceos en aeaaluewsteisuaacstascaseisese 20.77 pd: 
UIs NICDOIAS POUDSON s.2.5 sce ist ceee bs sees osc oseesaciene ce eisep ene 19. 97 pd- 
Do TAX Ol OMINOUS cae was ania cc ciciee bales Seat eis alolan nin one Sean oo nioeee 20. 08 pd- 
435 John Lewis-.-.. SOON OO HC RO OS CHOC COACACE CEE Ee 30. 06 pd- 
A4 Davids Kennison: socs.ce seesces sca sao a ss saeaeescas eceeaeeee 24, 29 pd. 
ee NGCL. JONI BEICN, G00 =o... .ecs. acim cs ie ccnsnseeseenos sp meee cexces 45. 44 pd- 
Milkoteetcas sow ce ht sematoces teste etadeer sasceu cae es eees 3.50 pd- 

Scraping and tarring........-... BORE Rn SC a ie HOOp nage aa oreerc 5. 00 

WSten ccc ctinn Jace cw se iccee es BOREAS Soon Bee BR hOF 2.40 

Wood -.é.<.. Besa coste eeeeees esc noetes ceetnuiecebevounseoeus 50 

IBAIRNCO =~ 25 - aaccise sce vient clases ascot ae eas Se ACHOC ono 2 

287.03 


This trip or voyage was copied from “ trip book ” of George Stele, of Gloucester, Mass., 
George F. Winter, bookkeeper, to show the method of settling the voyage of a George’s 
Bank fishing-vessel. 

Abbrevia'ions and other terms used are explained in parentheses thus ( ). 


Attest. 
“DAVID W. LOW. 


- In the Georges fishing each man’s halibut, when he catches them, are 

marked either. on the head or the tail with his private mark. "The 

codfish are thrown together, but each one cuts out the tongue and throws 

itinto a bucket. Then the skipper counts them up at the end of the 

day and sets down a memorandum of how many fish each man has 

on The halibut are landed and weighed, and each man is credited 
the nuniber of fish he has caught in detail. 


. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 
ay That identifies the halibut, but how are the cod identified? They 


hy vary from two to twenty pounds?—A. They make an average. 


By Mr. Foster: 
Q. What was the number of the crew in that trip ?—A. Nine hands, 
I think. 
By Sir Alexander Galt : 


_ Q. I want to ask you one question. I see this vessel took 40 barrels of 
bait, and was out only thirteen days. Could she possibly use that? 


etl ten: | 


2606 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


What kind of bait is it?—-A. Herring, or probably alewives. They take 
money to buy bait, and go to Cape Cod or down east—generally to Cape 
Cod. 

Q. They would not have it on board when they sailed ?—A. No; they 
take money and buy it from a baiter outside if they come across a baiter 
on the way, or if they don’t they go down to Cape Cod. 

By Mr. Foster: 

Q. That quantity, if not used, would not be wasted ?—A. No. They use 
hand-lines ou the Georges, aud are more liberal in the use of bait than 
the trawlers. 

Q. You would not say, I suppose, that they would use up that bait in 
that time?—A. I should say not. But they always look out to get 
bait enough, if they have a chance. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Have you made out a table to show the cost of a new schooner in 
the year 1875, fitted for each kind of business, or for the two kinds of 
business—cod and mackerel? If you have, take one of them.—A. I 
have. The first I take is as follows: 


Cost of a new schooner, in 1875, at Gloucester, Mass., fitted for the mackerel fishery ready 
for sea, with 17 hands, vessel 67 tons, for a three months’ voyage. 


Cost of hull, including spars, patent windlass, and patent steerer ...-....---- $5, 500 
Rigging, including sails, rigging, blocks, stove, tinware, 45 fathoms chain, 
100 fathoms 84-inch manila cable, and 2 anchors (1,060 Ibs.) ......-....---. 2, 200 


OUTFITS. 
Bait,'56 bbis:.of porgies and.7 bbls: of clamss.--<<222<2<s)s0-sjcmesea se ssccseas 400 
Salt 50 Dds: Of Galty. coc. soos ot Sas oe eee roan ce ne eee ror e een eee waco 100 
Sundries—bait-mill, seines, hooks, adzes, and other articles used on deck...-.. 50 
Provisions, including fuel and oil for light for 3 months......-.....---..----. ~ 700 
Sundries—lanterns, horus, compasses, charts, bunting, spy-glass, log, sounding fi 
Jine and lead (52 sii. son se eae ete ene soe ae esau eceameae ss wes 100. | | 
Barrels, 450 fish-barrels, unheaded and numbered..........:-----.---------- 723m | 
Totalcost of vessel, with ontfite wo. 05.0 2oe.sooes ee eens eoetaawieecese 9,775 


FOR SEINING—ADDITIONAL COST. 
Seine, length 200 fathoms (1,200 feet), depth 30 fathoms, spor mesh, fitted 


TORY TOP WSO: 525.5 SSeic es oss ea cece ccc cswiwccces sone conse cissee ecmeseeee 
Boat, suine- boat, fitted ready: for: use: 255.202. ~2,.so «ccces co lca eestor ere oe 250 
Dories, fitted ready TGP UNG = ss sede Seth dos cos osccine cnceae secs se Sees eeoeeus £0 
‘ 1, 200 
Less 50 bbls. bait, $325, and provisions for 3 less men 3 months, $125......-.-.- 450 
750 
Total: cost of seiner, with opthits .. cake sc. ccc coucscsguess sacehenebas ee 10, 525 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. Is that an actual case ?—A. It is from the cost of an actual vessel. 
It was procured from an actual vessel fitted ready for sea. It was pro- 
cured as a specimen for the Centennial. 

By Mr. Foster: 

Q. You did that yourself ?—A. Yes; [ went and procured the state- 

ment from the owner, who bought the vessel and gave me the items. 
By Mr. Dana: 

Q. You make a difference between the cost of a en for seining and | 

one for hand-lining?—.A. Yes; the vessel fitted for hand-liuing costs 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2607 


$9.975, for seining $10,525. She has to be provided with a seine and 
seine-boats and dories, which come to $1,200, but she does uot carry so 
many men or use so much bait, which makes a difference in her favor 
of $325 against the $1,200 added, leaving a balance of $750 to be added 
to the cost of a vessel fitted for hand-lining in order to fit her for seining. 

Q. Now, can you give us a similar statement of the cost of a vessel 
for trawling halibut on the Banks, made out in the same manner for 
the Centennial ?—A. Yes; I haveit. It is as follows: 


Cost of a new schooner at Gloucester, Mass., in 1875, fitted for trawling halibut on the Banks- 


Vessel of 71 tons, cost $8,000. Vessel made 9 trips to Western and Grand Banks, be 
ing at sea 302 days, with 12 men for crew, at the following expense, viz : 


NE 23 oo 2 oat sao a d's.a5 54 c09:804 os REE ee ht pWUS RTA wep vianesliwe ¥en $1,023 25 
nC DONS SCCOUDL. 0.050. cesiccs ve cebetny coc cue Wallies ticeactbacesaves 1,822 25 
MIEN; (SCO Sy a oo cas ie sicn cos soe cas tO aeeas saienen wees coecs cine ce ene 1,426 03 
REEEOUATZOS, 160, bait, salt, &o i. cscdsdb ove co ceteds deeses cesesececes 1,135 50 

” $5,408 64 


Q. Is that carpenters’ measurement ?—A. No; that is new measure- 
ment. 

Q. The carpenters build by their own old measurement, don’t they 7— 
A. Yes; they build by their own old measurement. 

Q. But this is the registered tonnage 7—A. Yes. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 
Q. I understand that this vessel cost $8,800, while the other cost 
$5,500 ?—A. This is 71 tons. 
Q. Well, there is only a difference of four tons between this and the 
last you gave ?—A. I know that, but the $8,800 includes cost of rigging, 
while the other is only the cost of hull. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. I suppose there is a difference in the style of building?7—A. We 
can get vessels built cheaper down East than at Essex, and some at Es- 
sex cheaper than others. It is aceording to how they are built. The 
following statement shows the cost of a schooner fitted for cod and hal- 
ibut fishing on the Graud Banks: 


Cost of a new schooner, in 1875, at Gloucester, Mass., fitted for fishing on Grand Banks for 


pers and halibut, the fish to be salted on board, fitted for four months’ voyage, with 14 
ands, : 


PRES 7 OA Livi 13. 2 7s So SII a Sag own Saves eo eneaecetiinees $6, 000 
BESS Sooo ola So c/s Selcee sas Socien Mpmilele coe SacsSs seccdeicceces cacces savace 2,550 
EN Keddy Lor t66... 25. venb ames so scecicc once seu baaeass access eens 168 
MEELOO fathoms, fitted +. . 26 iceves s.cncessoncc soescuscoecs escaes cous 607 
Es coe Sos. anes wane eeu aecn (aseennssdnakebecsosceesesuseees 15 
IN 2 os ue cia ca mec ieG en eee eas vi dS aaa wed Kaa Sen N wen _ 400 
SECON Preverving bait... ..s/scc.c. -ncdbe cose cocece cous eccegieneses 36 
DS se se ig OE oy yw CAME ccc w'aks bain ockg Wwe we Chee Woes 12 
SEEDO ies, OF Herring... 5. sodas. .<sede.cosccs cscone cecccecovces cove 100 
Lg ott BE cine TEER oo nncnoa ss sauces CsBeRiewacs cathe sneer as as ss 34 
SONG DAIS WOODED... 020 io0.0. ceacee 000 cdi vecwad eos a imsaceces 12 
NS a, toss a sock sac steeen~ coe dhe on od dance es o<ocs 800 
Total cost of vessel, with ontfits........00...4- ertarere viacmmdees' see - 10,734 

s 


2608 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I have now a statement of a vessel fitted for the George’s Banks, for 
cod-fishing, ready for sea. It is as follows: 
AT GLOUCESTER, MASS. 


Vesscl fitted for George's Bank cod-fishing, ready for sea,summer trip. Tonnage 80 tons, 
with 11 hands, 5 weeks. ; 


Coatiof halls can secs sar soe cs toccme cave ces scasecoue wecamocssceelere ctewaccss $5, 200 
PAIN: (cto css cmsdatsesacsslscccedene ses Aan eem en enlwneseheel sate anecl-weceet = 400 
IRIQGING ooo coo ae eee esos t eaten ee eee e eee iene -oeeeen scene ete aaa 550 
MIMS SoS oe acne Pete abs acl nase weemcetan as =p eiealone oan ta ae ais arenes a75 
DORY osc accle natu satges aes ~namuee sos o<-njeeceecissen sees ccesisascieeGe wees 14 
0 tous pebbils: ballast). <. 0-2. ene ces cae donc s Soup e so ac.c once eee 50 
Platforms, ice-houses, and other fittings of hold ...... 2.2... -....-..2..-20---- 75 
Gurry-pens-and other deck-fittings = :.< <2 220 -2c5s5 ssccs wou cecicw cc cceeeacsse 30 
230 fathoms 8} manila cable, weighing 3,304 pounds ......-... ..-.-..-.------ 450 
J anchora, of 500 pounds each... 2... 5. ..5 <2 xoco-e =e Renae cline wowseecees 120 
6 dozen 16-pound lines, 3 dozen gauging lines.... ..-.-. -...----..---.----e- ee 10 
‘Lanterns, horrs, compasses, charts, buntivg, spy-glass, log, &c........-...... 100 
20'tous ice, for preserving baitand halibut <--2- 22s 202 oo. coc cc cco cose nsce 30 
40 barrels bait.2.2 3. Sco 7c os occas oes cossseoceulecess SEES ASC AER EES 40 
Wioodtand!oGal Ss -sie eas sor ecclosasone me came nice seme tiene ena ee nee ee ieee 10 
14 barrels water.....- Bosses Sata el seen celesowodicam pee oe a aoe ee eee 3 
Provisionsifor Ui men; :5 weeks::2 222.22 (5 sss5 2622 ewesteo soc aecee eee cecaesees 175 

dtal‘coat of veusel.and outlits 2. <2 <) osteo et. esas occas cee lace sestcoee 7, 862 


Q. I believe that in the last but one of the accounts you read from 
the returns the small cod was putin. Is that now usually brought in ?— 
A. Yes, it is saved and brought in. 

Q. It used in former times to be thrown over ?—A. Well, I don’t know 
about that. 

Q. Now they are brought in and have a market value?—A. Yes, 

Q. The liver and other parts are brought in and saved ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then the gurry-pen is the pen in which they throw the gurry ?— 
- A. Yes. 

Q. That is kept and thrown overboard at the proper time and place ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any memorandum there to show the amount of the im- 
portation into the United States from the Dominion fisheries in any one 
year, so as to show what value the privilege is to the people of the Do- 
minion ?—A. [I have a memorandum of the importation last year. 

Q. That is obtained from the custom-house ?—A. It is obtained from 
a book that I saw in the room. 

Mr. Davies. Let us have the book. | 

Mr. DANA. You need not mind that until we get the book. Will you 
take any other memorandum or table you have made?—A. I havea 
profit and loss account of George Steele’s vessels in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence mackerel fisheries for seventeen years. It is made up from his 
bay trip book, Gloucester. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Be kind enough to explain how you made it up ?—A. I gave him 
credit for the number of barrels of mackerel he got, the gross catch of 
his vessels, and deducted from it the stock charges, making the net 
stock, and divided that by two, which gave the vessel’s share for the 
whole period of seventeen. years. Then I charged the outfits and ex- 
peuses. I charged him for the charter what I supposed. 

Q. Did you take this from his books ?—A. No; it is an estimated 
profit and loss account, made up by me. 

Q. He is the owner of the ship ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


@ By Mr. Dana: 


2609 


Q. Instead of trying to estimate a charge to be made for the use of the 


ship you call it “‘ charter”? 


Sir ALEXANDER GALT. I understand that one side of the account is 
made up from the books, and the other side is an estimate. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


-Q. Do you find in the book the actual sales?—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. You can go on with your atbatonns. —A. It is as follows: 


Number of vessels engaged during 17 years, from 1878 to 1876, inclusive, in the Gulf 
of Saint Lawrence mackerel fishery, excepting the years 1870 and 1871, when none 
were sent, by George Steele, of Gloucester, 107; average time employed yearly, 4 
months 13 days; average number of hands employed yearly for 17 years, 15. 


Stock charges, 17 years. Catch, 17 years. 
Por bait, 6-5-3... sca se.es0<5- $48, 052 80 | 33,645 bbls. mackerel... ...--. $403, 832 86 
——— Less stock charges ...-.. 48, 052 80 
Outfits and expenses : —S—S 
Provisions for 15 men for 4 mos. Netistockls..--<ssces secs kece 355, 780 00 
, 13 days; in 107 vessels, 15 x = 
i 133 x 107 x 40 ets. per day, Charterer for vessel’s share... 177,890 00 
for fuel, oil, and provisions. 85,386 00 | Crews’ share.........--.-.--- 177,890 00 
8500 bbls: salt: 252.2... << 8,500 00 ———-—_ 
107 bait mills, at $15......... 1,605 00 355, 780 00 
Fishing-gear for 107 vessels, == 
: BiSIOeachs. so ertoeme 5 one 4,815 00 | Charterers’ expenses. ....-.... 222, 605 00 
Custom-house and portcharges 2,140 00 | Charterers’ share, or earnings 
Charter of 107 schooners, 4 OILVOSSOL oss she a erraseseee 177, 890 00 
mos, 23 days each, at $200 per —___— 
MONE hoon eee eset eo. 94, 802 00 WORE) fat oon ee eects 44,715 00 
Insurance on charter, $94,802; ————— 
barrels, $30,000; bait, $48,- Charterer’s loss on each vessel. 418 00 
052; and outfits, $100, 406 ; Each vessel’s earnings, as per 
total, $278,160, at 4 percent. 11,126 00 vessel account below....-.. 251 00 
ss Skippership, ” or master’s —_-—— 
commission, on “‘ net stock,” Actual loss yearly on each 
. $355,780, at 4 per cent...-.. 14, 231 00 VOSSEL 252i: ce ees earies 167 00 
222, 605 00 | 
Dr. VESSELS’ ACCOUNT. Cr. 
To insurance on 107 vessels, Charter. 225 saciecvistscloscs cca $96, 802 00 
$535,000, at 4 per cent.... $21,400 00 
interest on $535,000, at 7 per 
OONt, 44 BIOB’- cc. <5 on oo 14, 056. 00 
f taxes on $460,000, at $18 per 
year, for 44 months rere 3, 037 00 
3 depreciation on vessels, 44 
: mos., 107 vessels, at $275 
4 GRMN esos as eee esos 29, 425 00 
67,918 00 
Balance to 107 vessels... 26, 884 00 
94, 802 00 96, 802 00 


Net earnings of each schooner, $251. 


Q. The first part of that statement, I understand, assumes that you 


are dealing with the charterer ?—A. 


Yes. 


Q. The latter part shows what would be the result to the owner if he 


. would charter his vessels to some one else ?7—A. No. 


If the owner who 


owned the vessel kept his account as well as the charterer. 


164 F 


2610 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 3% 

Q. The man who charters the vessel would lose?—A. The one who 
chartered the vessel and fitted her for fishing loses $418, and the one 
who lets him have the vessel makes $251. 

Q. Besides interest on his vessel ?—A. Yes. Besides interest on the 
valuation of his vessel. 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. Allowing for depreciation ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Ten per cent.? I did’t hear you read the allowance for deprecia- 
tion.—A. “ Depreciation on vessels 45 months, 107 vessels, at $275 
each—#29,425.” 

Q. What rate is that ?—A. I didn’t reckon it any more than what, in 
my judgment, the depreciation would equalon one of our fishing ves- 
sels. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Q. From your experience, what do you take to be the depreciation 
in a new vessel the first five years? Have you any means of knowing 
that? Have you inquired into that?—A. Well, the depreciation the 
first year on a new vessel is more than any other time. 

Q. What do you suppose to be the depreciation on an average of a 
well-built vessel, built at Gloucester or Essex, in the fishing business, 
when well taken care of? I don’t mean incurring any extraordinary 
expenses, or suffering from extraordinary negligence, but with good 
ordinary care taken of her?—A. The first year she would depreciate 
$1,200. That is, supposing her to cost $8,000. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. Why should she depreciate more the first year than the second ?— 
A. Because everything is new, and if at the end of a year you want to 
sell a new vessel, she will not bring so much. AjJl these articles have to 
be renewed at the end of two years at the most—sails, rigging, and 
everything of that kind. 

Q. Then it would seem she should depreciate more the second year. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. A little of that depreciation must be fancy. It is just like the 
ordinary case where second-hand goods sell for much less than brand 
new goods, although, practically, they may in some cases be almost as 
good as new 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you think a merchant, having to make up a profit and loss 
account and wishing to know his exact position at the end of a year on 
that trip, would allow that amount ?—A. I think he would strike off 
one thousand two hundred dollars. 

Q. That is, in making up an account with himself, in which case he has 
no motive for misrepresenting the value. It is based on the theory that 
if he had to sell her under fair average circumstances he would lose that 
amount ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, what do you think the depreciation would be at the end of 
five years 7—A. I think a vessel built for $8,000 at the end of five years 
hy not be worth more than $6,000, kept, of course, in good running 
order. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. That would only be $800 depreciation for the last four years. 


= oe 


eS 


ee 


CC  — 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2611 


® By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Now, does the rate of depreciation diminish as you goon?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Is the depreciation for the second year as great as for the first ?— 
A. Not so much, but it is more than the third year, because at the end 
of the third year she has'a new suit of sails. 

Q. She gets a new lease of life almost ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then after that ye:ir I suppose she always has a proper suit of 
sails, aud the depreciation diminishes on that vessel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The period of greatest depreciation is from the time she is brand 
new to the time when she is not brand new ?—A. Yes. A 


By Mr. Foster : 


Q. How many months are these vessels employed per annum on an 
average {—A. It is stated in that summary exactly. 

Q. Mr. Steele’s vessels would be about the average of the whole fleet ? 
—A. Yes. 

Q. You have called the average $$75 for the depreciation on a trip of 
four and a half months ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then that would be $550 depreciation for the year?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. That would be an average for the course of her life?—A. Yes. 

Q. The cost is assumed to be how much ?—A. That average depre- 
ciation is based on an average cost of $5,000. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Have you any other tables except the little « one that we threw 
out?—A. No other tables. I have a description of how a voyage for 
mackerel-fishing is conducted. 

,Q. We won’t have that at present ?—A. I have a statement of the 
quantity of fish furnished to the Army during the war. 

Q. You were active in getting fish put into the rations of the Army ? 
—A. I was. 

Q. You may state, without going into figures, perhaps, what effect 
that had upon the fishing interests of Gloucester during the time the 
war lasted?—A. I think it improved it. It made a better market for 
the fish and gave them higher prices: 

Q. Do you think it had a sensible effect ?—A. It increased the de- 
mand. 

Q. Do your statisties enable you to state to what extent ?—A. I can 
give you the number of barrels of fish used in the Army. 

Q. I mean the quantity sent from Gloucester ?—A. No, I can’t do 
that. 

Q. What was the quantity used in the Army annually. Give us one 
year as a specimen ?—A. In the year 1864 they used 5,569,000 pounds 
of pickled fish, which cost $395,547.26, and 6,156,858 pounds of dried 
fish, which cost $451,025. 

By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. Where is that taken from ?—A. It is taken from a letter of the 
Commissary General of Subsistence of the United States Army in reply 
to a letter I wrote him. 

Q. That might be the cost as delivered to the Army?—A. That is what 
the United States paid for it when they bought it. 

By Mr. Dana: 


EQ. They delivered it at their own expense to the troops?—A. I pre- 
sume so. ; 


2612 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Now I would like to ask you somewhat the same question 1 Gid to 
another witness, but I want to put it beyond doubt. You know they 
make up the voyages, and the details go into those books. Suppose a 
fisherman wants to know how much he is charged for his provisions, he 
has the means of knowing it from the books of the owners 7?—A. There 
are no provisions charged to him in our books, unless he is on what is 
called winter-shore fishing. 

Q. That I don’t care so much about. But whatever the items are 
that are charged to him, be has the means of knowing by the accounts 
given him, and also by examination of the books, if he wishes it ?—A. 
Yes. ' 

Q. And every owner of a vessel in Gloucester has to have a trip-book, 
doesn’t he, and to have his accounts regularly kept?7—A. Yes. Some 
keep it on a sheet of paper and some in books. But all the trips have 
to be made up, so as to show to the master and crew. 

Q. A sharesman is not obliged to take his share in money, is he? He 
has a right to take it in fish ?—A. Yes, half his fish—that is, after he 
pays his share of the expenses. 

Q. Of course he has to pay the incumbrances, but he has a right, 
instead of receiving their market value, to take them himself and do 
what he pleases with them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is to say, he does not make a contract that he will take pay, 
but by his contract he may either take his fish or money ?7—A. That is 
just it. . 

Q. Well, do they do that ever; that is, take their own fish ?7—A. I 
have known instances where they took their own fish; where one of the 
crew was going home and he thought he could get more for the mackerel 
at home than it could be sold for there. (See explanatory note belov.) 

Q. Now, what class of men constitute the fishing crews generally that 
go trom Gloucester? Of course we know that there are some bad men, 
but how are they as a general thing 7—A. I think they are a very good 
class of men indeed. 

Q. It is common, is it, for men to change from the post of master or 
skipper to a hand ?—A. Yes, I have known instances where several 
skippers have been aboard our vessel. 

Q. Ex-skippers, I suppose, we would call them. There have been 
several, you say, on one vessel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are the modes of doing business, the rates and charges and that 
sort of thing, well understood in Gloucester 7—A. I think they are. 

Q. Well, is Gloucester a place where there is or can be any kind of 
monopoly or combination among the people who sell to the fishermen or 
furnish them or is it competition ?—A. Competition, decidedly so. 

Q. Now, I need not ask you the question, but is Gloucester a place in 
daily and hourly connection by railway, telegraph, and newspaper with 
the rest of the country. They have the morning and evening papers 
from Boston every day, don’t they ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, I want you to tell me when a vessel comes in from her fish- 
ing—we have heard it in part, but tell me what is the course of business 
when she arrives at the wharf? In the first place, the wharf belongs to 
the owner or to some onwer ?—A. Yes; the wharf belongs to the owner 
or fitter. A vessel may be owned by outside parties and come there 
to fit. 

Q. There is no separate charge made for the use of the wharf in those 
cases 7—A. No. 

Q. That goes into what the owner has to furnish 7—A. Yes. 


2 ee ee So 


ES ee 


ep 


_AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2613 


Q. How is wharf property, high or low 7—A. Wharf property is very 
valuable is Gloucester. 

Q. I suppose that, like all property, it has decreased in value, owing 
to the general depression. Is that so or not?—A. Well, I don’t know 
of any wharves that have been sold in Gloucester, 

Q. Well, it may be that wharf property has held its own more than 
property in houses and land. How do you think that is?—A. I think 
it has not diminished so much as houses and lands up in town. 

Q. I suppose there is a limit of available wharf property. You have 
your harbor, and the wharf property must be eut out of that ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, when the vessel comes to the wharf, what is the first thing 
done ?—A. The first thing done is that the mackerel are hoisted out of 
the vessel to the wharf. 

Q. By the crew ?—A. By the crew, with a hired horse. 

Q. They bave got beyond hoisting it themselves ?—A. Yes; as soon 
as it is landed each man knows his own fish by the private mark which 
-has been put on the head of the barrel, and each stands by itself. The 
barrels ate then unheaded by one of the crew and the fish pitched into 
the culling-crib, which is 24 feet wide and 4 feet long. At each end 
there is a culler—that is, a man who selects the mackerel as No. 1, 2, 
and 3. From this culling-crib they are thrown into the culling-tub, 
according as the culler regards them as No. 1, 2, or 3. 

Q. Who are those cullers?—A. They are men experienced in that 
kind of business—men of good judgment, because you have to rely on 
the judgment of the culler, under our laws, in regard to the quality of 
the mackerel. It is left to his judgment. 

Q. Well, the owner is buund by the act of the caller as well as the 
fisherman ?—A. Certainly. 

Q. Have they ever been rejected 7—A. I have not known of it. 

Q. These cullers are sometimes on one wharf and sometimes on another ? 
—A. Yes. When these tubs are full enough, two of the crew take them 
and lift them on the scales, where they are weighed by the weigher. As 
soon as they are weighed he cries out “ barrels one, two, three,” as the 
case may be, and the captain marks it on bis memorandum-book. Then 
two of the crew empty the tub into the packing-crib, and there the 
crew’s part of it ends. Then at the packing-crib it is packed in barrels 
and marked according to the grade. Then a half bushel of salt is put 
in with it, and the cooper takes it, puts in the head, and gives it a roll 
on the wharf. The barrel rolls down the wharf to where it is bored by 
the pickler. 

Q. That is, he makes a bung-hole?—A. Yes; and then he puts a fun- 
nel in and pickles it. Then he allows it to stand awhile, and fills it up 

again until itis full of pickle. Then he brings it up, sets it on end, and 
it is branded with the deputy inspector’s name and the grade of the fish. 
It is then turned out ready for market. 

Q. Are the crew usually present and taking an interest in this 7—A. 
Yes; they are right on hand untilit is weighed off, and then they don’t 
care any more about it. . 

Q. Now, do the owners and outfitters of vessels keep shops for the 
sale of clething and such things?—A. No; there is very little if any 
kept by the outfitters. It used to be so. 

Q. So these men who have clothes to purchase generally go to other 

places ?--A. Yes. 

y Q. If they have cash or credit they make their own bargains? If they 
want the aid of the owner what do they do ?7—A. They get an order on 
a storekeeper. 


2614 _ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. And the owner then becomes responsible ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then after the voyage is up what clothing he has had is charged 
on his private account ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, what does the owner get for the risk? He takes the risk of 
the life of the man and also of the catch not amounting to enough. 
What profit does he get for that?—A. He gets a profit owing to the 
competition among the clothes-dealers. They allow a certain percent- 
age to the owner of the vessel for giving these orders. 

Q. How much is that? Is it based on the wholesale prices or as the 
bargain may be made?—A. It is based principally on the wholesale 
prices. They sell to the outfitter at the wholesale prices and charge the 
goods to the men at the retail prices at the store. 

Q. The man kuows what he will be charged on the outfitter’s books 7— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Now, would it be possible for those who have neither credit nor 
cash to do any better than that ?—A. I thmk not. 

Q. lL suppose if they went without any credit or cash, or any one to 
become responsible in this way, they would hardly make a purchase at 
all?—A. I think not. The risk is too great. Asa general thing the 
storekeeper would rather have the order of the owner. 

Q. Now, in case any of the crew thinks anything is going wrong, and 
does not get satisfaction, are there not plenty of lawyers ready to take 
up their cases ?—A. It is to be assumed there are. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. I did not understand him to answer the question as to the outfit- 
ter’s profit on the stores furnished on his credit? The seaman gets his 
bill, with the rate put on the account to show him what he buys at ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. That is what you call the retail rate. Hecan go from place to 
place ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, having got his bill at the retail rate, it is given to him on the 
understanding that before he gets the clothes the bill must be indorsed ?— 
A. He goes to the ownerand says: ‘“ Here, Il am going in your vessel 
and have no clothes. Give me an order on such and such a firm to get 
a suit of clothes or oiled clothes.” He takes that order and goes up. 
He knows what the clothes are worth, and will not pay extravagant 
prices. 

Q. Now the question is what the outfitter gets as compensation for the 
risk ?—A. He gets a profit out of the manufacturer, or rather the whole- 
sale dealer. If he gives an order on Carter, a manufacturer of oiled 
clothes, Carter will sell them at the wholesale prices and charge them 
on the account at the retail prices to the man. 

Q. What is the percentage ?—A. I could not form any accurate esti- 
mate. 

Q. As nearly as you can say ?—A. Some will pay more than others. 
I don’t think the average is more than 8 per cent., perhaps 10. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. What would the articles be that the men would buy at the differ- 
ent stores?—A. Clothing. Tobacco they would get at the outfitter’s 
store. 

Q. The outfitter has tobacco?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do they bay anything but clothing in this way 7—A. I think not. 
They only buy what they actually need to fit them out to go on board 
the vessel. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2615 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. In case their families require assistance, is there any custom of sup- 
plying the families of the fishermen by the outfitters?—A. Yes; by let- 
ting them have supplies from the store and giving them cash. 

Q. Is that done upon half-pay orders, or anything of that sort ?7—A. 
No; I never had an order from a man that went for me. If his wife 
came down I always let her have provisions. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Do you think it is the custom to make advances either in cash or 
goods?—A. Yes, if they run up an account to more than the voyage 
warrants, we check it. 

Q. At what rate are those goods charged ?—A. I think the average 

_ would be 10 per cent. 
QQ. You mean 10 per cent. on what?—A. I refer to the provision sup- 
plied to the families. I don’t think they will average as much as that. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Take, for instance, the case of a barrel of flour, or something of 
that sort, what would the percentage be on that?—A. Well, a barrel of 
flour, when I was in the business, was $8 or $10. 

Q. Is the percentage you name on which the goods are furnished a 
percentage over the retail prices?—A. No, they could not go to the 

| grocers and get it for cash avy cheaper than under this arrangement. 

Q. How is the owner enabled to do that? You say they are furnished 

‘ at about the same rate for which they would get those supplies, paying 
cash ?—A, Well, perhaps for a few months past the competition in gro- 
ceries has been so great that for cash you could purchase at any price 

you chose, and one grocer has gone up in consequence of that sort of 
| trade. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. But in fair average times the owners allow the families about the 
/ rate that they could buy for with cash ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Where does the profit come from for the risk 7—A. I do not be- 
lieve they ever take that into consideration. 
= But, as a business transaction, they buy it at’ wholesale ?—A. 
es. 
Q. Then in these cases of goods allowed to the families is there any 
other profit than the difference between wholesale and retail ?—A. No; 
| Idon’t think there is, as far as my knowledge extends. I will not say 
| for all the firms in Gloucester. There have been many cases where gro- 
‘ceries have been sold in this way to the families of men who have never 
| come back. 
| (On the following day the witness requested leave to make an explan- 
| ation with regard to the right of one of the crew to take his share of 
| the fish in place of its money value.. The explanation is to the follow- 
| ing effect: ‘The mackerel of the crew are all packed. If any one of 
| the crew desires his share of fish instead of money, he can have it by 
‘paying expenses, by requesting it of the agent of the schooner before 
| the trip is sold.”) if 


’ 
’ 
*; 
F 
| 


2 
de 


2616 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


FRIDAY, October 12, 1877. 
The Conference met. 
Examination of Major Low resumed. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. Yesterday there was presented, but not explained at the 
time, a history of 27 vessels; did you prepare this ?—Answer. Yes; I 
did. 

Q. This gives a history, does it, of a series of vessels—twenty-odd 
vessels—in a tabulated form. The first name is the Austerlitz, tonnage 
so much, number of hands so many; * fishing,” I believe, means cod- 
fishing ?—A. Yes; cod and halibut. ; 

Q. The average hands fishing, 8; mackereling, 14. This gives the 
history down to 1868, when she was sold? The statement also shows 
what became of each vessel, whether sold or lost. The first column 
gives the time engaged in cod and halibut fishing, the number of months 
and days each year, the time engaged in mackerel-fishing each year, the 
gross value of the catch each year, the vessel’s share and the crew’s 
share each year. The quantity of fish caught is put down in quintals 
or barrels, according as it is mackerel or cod. 

WITNESS. Might I be allowed to make an explanation regarding that ? 


When I presented it yesterday, 1 intended to present it before the sum- ° 


mary. Thesummary I presented in my evidence was a summary of 
those abstracts. 
Q. In the cost of a new schooner you gave yesterday, you had one 


item, *‘ expense account.” Have yon the broadside that was printed 


for the use of the Centennial ?—A. I can get it. 

(The paper is produced, and explanation made that it cannot be put 
into the case, as it was taken out of a frame, having been used at the 
Centennal Exhibition, and brought here. It is a statement of the cost 

of anew schooner, built in 1875, fitted for the mackerel-fishing, ready 
for sea, 67 tons.) 

Q. This printed sheet was used at the Centennial?—A. Yes; it was 
one of those framed and put around the tank in which we showed the 
models of fishing-schooners. 

Q. Are these the same vessels you gave in that paper ?—A. Yes; I 
made a slight alteration for the mackerel-catcher. That was made to 
show the cost of a schooner to fish off our own shores, and [ made a 
slight alteration to adapt it to the fishing in the gulf. 

Q. Yes; and then you afterwards gave the difference between the 
gult-fishing vessels and a seiner on our own shores?—A. Yes. 

Q. I see you put the cost of fuel, light, and provisions at 40 cents a day. 
There has been some question whether that was not a large sum.—A. 
It is based on an actual voyage. I have with me the original documents. 
I asked different owners of vessels who had new schooners in the differ- 
ent classes of fishing to furnish me with the cost of their schooners and 
such other information as they saw fit in relation to their schooners. 
One of them gave me full details of the cost of running a schooner for 
the whole season. I have the original papers that he handed me. 

Q. I suppose you would not like to part with them ?—A. I should not 
like to, but, if required, I could put them in. 

Q. Now take the items that make this 40 cents per day per man.—A. 
Well, this vessel was engaged on the Grand Bank 302 days in the fresh- 


\‘' 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | 2617 


halibut fishing with 12 men for a crew, and this is her bill for provisions 
for 302 days: 


PROVISIONS. 
GME ON an sae caacsetss ues Siasegnan ene esiee case heeeuns cask meee $115 00 
QE cords: WOO .... ..---- 2222 cee o ne cence come ne coc n ne coc wes cee cows cone 25 00 
SEE SIO. So asign a's csi s enige so ons casmacsicsc(nandipae sina saccew acces 168 00 
EY DOO 5 5 = 2 bec ccc ohiqhadce eitccataects tues avant ovcvecwasaces ue 50 
og Wie SUOUIGOIS 2c ocaa sss descsapa so cacs ssdeieins ic: cisemainesss 25 
*y a vn REA.  Baebcorer ene ew > SSR ae Sy ease eee 84 00 
RE RIOMNG 22 cetessnc=s conden oo oce= MMMEia sco ~scotemoes'- ssseakehees< 10 00 
SE, TEGO S orion c's atte = sasaki ten >< 55 ees => <n ek gab sissa gabe coo 6 00 
BINELDD 6 ooo as <athias >< caddtemacscecatns- ss sReMengals sour echdsiancc 35 50 
ee Tg ae ee eigen: SEES SrICe: 1 RACBIOSDOE: «ARC RISO Ae area 5 00 
BEEN INOLDRSOS 55 saan. = cata cauin coe wip eee e~ cee seu es c/assceceecus. = 40 80 
MRI, VINOQRLE -..s6cicoss socacclsscaasiaas ve sat xccnewencs > saicenecciasGs 1 80 
SEI GUCAD 052-2 o'oa'sss,o coe «cas ccies sR ales oo'slsineicen's.< tice acisnccae,s 106 75 
Sen C~ BNPlCB: 26.5.2 = ss coc s+ toe eeebe acecaca ena sicecelccssicsce 19 60 
SERIE CTORIN GAItOL: = c'o05 225. 226 so sapneedss a ciceeaiccacie re miectancseviesse 8 50 
PEN. BSIGPRtUAS Sooo. ose owas Gos cieclcs wep eee de coe coe ese metncs wescisce 3 10 
MRIS. KOLQNOHO Ho fo08o a cas tec ec ewe meee er ee ate Saeanes eakeenceueese 14 00 
BEAR. ADI CO aie acters ac 5 1S nssk wiele Dom lnuts Oe cla wic oes eee wswe ee lesaecen ties 10 00 
BEDS BORD ios 212 oc aie ook on cine cere oe ola cemies se sew abe oe tle sisiciesccieeeeieees 4 90 
BPRS - MUSCAT cco ek cin coe Ssaisins oom oe na oa Shaw ae wen ce ubioew slew eancs 4 50 
MELDs LDOsDEPG BRUCO ls. elas. s aoscis cee Sao oe an sae eos ae eee clot cele see 20 
WOARb CAE OB ie 28- Ss) Shs oe cassie ce wee ee Sees se eee Soe ulceed ee eteieceee 2x0 
Bread preparations suc. once ee omer eee ore eet eee et eee eweeee 6 10 
MaMp CHIMNCYR oc. asics cose pelcce cece werees Sue ceteeeesacses ences 4 00 
eADIO BRIG a. ao nclnos seas ar tewa ce cele cc sins ca aetan een coos ale lessee 1 95 
Bie MOBS CANGIES 2-6 ica ccc ee Sew croten coe e eS shoe ewe seneee Seen aoe ee 1 20 
ME AOZ WICKS Sete ee eek Joes Soca eee eu e weieee eee ou ele web eee 70 
Maa BYIBLOMDPICKS sooo e o aes cet cen ices oe ce ca osee sicaecssective om 20 
ee FOUB SLOVO" PO]BN: -2125 2 c155-siscselascisoul casinaayse ace sc ealcetecinacescesce 70 
Bt IDR DECAM Senay Uan cow cose emtase boecic ces ideccieses se dosGaeawsiseeee 12 60 
BROS. CONGO Soca. cscaeses ce eeeceeease ROE eee an Pied ey ay eee 7! GD 
BEEPS DUAN DOLALOOK Scene saccises cacisec ces cas sec ened salciceeaeescarses.eoee 66 40 
Bea DUST TONIONAi ee oroe cee tic wae id ae eo occa cowie oe ne eee Sota ete 12 00 
Rea UB. DOOLE eee encom eos ot aioe eee accent aoe news ee ees aunts tena eeiesene 3 00 
Se DUSNAGUINIDS Sco 2s cern oe feo saes scale sce suiciseseress acces coos cae 4 00 
5 OSS MACGRER TE on semen ere epee atc ace nine ck ace mots beak esis ce 12 00 
BEPPADES IAT oo oc cone won ocala e eer eee Pas eels We aioe a ae eda acta awis manne 76 50 . 
BUGS DULLOP = soc oa oe ance sce arc ine eae no eainic oa cieiseis searcaes 147 00 
MSDS VITOR NNINGAG He ccc 2 fare oe ete So cae ean aee cee ceuces cee tienen 31 30 
Merotablesss co. oie cere cee es eos eee esa es Boas Sees 30 00 
BRITO IG, SWASOI aoe ee octet etc teas aa chasis cone ecient ease esas se 40 00 


1, 426 03 
I have all the charges for that vessel that year. 
* Q. They live pretty well on board these vessels ?—A. Yes; it is a well- 
known fact that they fare well on board the American schooners. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 
Q. This is what the 40 cents per day is founded upon?—A. Yes. I 


| May observe that the peas seem pretty high, but they used split peas, 


' Most of them. 
- By Mr. Dana: : 


Q. Now, is that a fair average cost for fitting out a vessel for that 


_ time ?—A. I think it is; because I know others have figured it up to 45 
cents. 


_Q. Now, how do you make out the 40 cents a day? You haven't 
oa us that.—A. Well, it is got by dividing $1,426.03, the total cost, 
the number of men and the number of days. It is a fraction less 


‘ than 40 cents. 


_ Q. But there are some of those things that are not consumed. I sup- 
pose they are destroyed. Of course there is more or less waste—such, 


2618 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


for instance, as chimneys for lamps.—A. Well, they are breaking all 
the time. There would not be much of that left when they got home 
from their voyage. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. That is a cod-fishing voyage?—A. Cod-and halibut. It would 
apply to the Grand Banks or the Western Banks. All classes of vessels 
average about the same. 

Q. Now, the trawl-gear is put down on this broadside as $1,000 and 
a small fraction. Have you the items of that?—A. I have. They are 
as follows: 


Vessel 71 tons, cost $8,800. Fitted for trawling halibut. 


TRAWL-GEAR. 
RP WING yo. Aocee cua see ac eS ccrece ee see sao eri aceon eae cece Deaeeie ciate 00 
Sibasketeo. 3 soe. pec ecarwcces soicwecteoeseconecs Woaasiece wens see ee oa eies 6 40 
De DUOVS! 22 case a2 ssc cceesies = Sococcisesisoceisces wetacsicoeosoless Nossa sceeeecetes 11 00 
A DUCK OLSaeo ee oe cow ie sedis sate coon Se ie eee eras Soe eee eee ee Senet 5 00 
AG files. oso ec ee we cae eee Seale Soe Coe Ee eer ee lene Noonan ease 6 58 
1,483 pounds ground-lines.........--...-..-- 7 -- 444 90 
340 pounds: FangIng-lines w. ssc sjeeg- 5. t eye oes caso ce Se COR ES E NOGHOA ee 410 72 
PO KNIVES eae onic nin eee ee we Se neo may aa Sas cis es ee ayee mew eon Soames 15 60 
TY StONOS (os scee sodeisciszss soe est.cecaccssis ie SSwie/dew elon cajessoees Soa sels Sus esey ee 75 
Se BEALS - is occa elec mawise cmos aioe eshe oe ce elasetes wetaa ures aeticnt ie Goce cena 5 25 
3600: pounds ‘baOy-line sess acs 5 cas sen. scocec bese ca ceeesoas Gob eeeesectisees 64 80 
A dozen, DtOOMS 2) s2see sa cec re sos cetetn cass 5 Pot ee ees See oes ena cee ene 9 60 
D2) PTORSROOKS) soe sehen acs ccee sous Se cetes sescee edie se ewes se ee sence eee 109 20 
23 pounds IOEOESE WINES ookaoe cocoa oceans eee ee ee 8 05 
DS : GOMIORs joe aioe Sercewccuincie eee leds sen ecw ewe er tebiddnss seseeeeueece sxe ae 130 00 
Hroncand copper VACkS: 235 <0 isc</easane assess 20 cceestesenceseyeeeeecaeness 1 27 © 
ASNOVEISS ee Gace st oe oie ceals pe eye oee ae opera ene mata ac Soe earn teens 3 00 
ANCHOLS tosis ce oe swale es ooseer se erseree Votes oleae eo oeeteue sees 40 00 
Oars and SCOOpe. 252252252 sd302+-s6 aver veecesssoes cccste Secerssssecesec sees 47 13 
1, 023 25 


Any explanation in regard to this that may be required I can give. 
Some of the terms used are technical. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. There is a term ganging-lines.—A. eet is the small line to which 
the hooks are fastened. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Now, you have here in this broadside the vessel’s expense account, 
$1,823.85. Do they call that an expense account? Is that the way they 
entitle it on the books in making up the account ?—A. No; it is all put 
in one account; all the things for the vessel are put in one account. 
These were separated for this special purpose. 

Q. Now, you take this expense account; what period of time does it 
cover ?—A. Three hundred and two days. 

Q. Now, what are the items of the vessel’s expense account ?—A. 
They are as follows: 

VESSEL’S EXPENSE. 


Gianyar = coc veces veccekcce ceitesc>< casuecstanbelteetseueeese cecnteeees $7 48 
Paxoeling 5 eo sn tse eec sence: sagees«s<tadehsecag oes cauepece sense need 23 00 
Weather chee. o css eke een coc meee oe cee eee eA eee See 11 29 
Jib Tanks 6 cabs sessed sc oc cccssscodtes shcusdcsecuates scscdwess saetestbe 1 30 
Waileos oo) se esa scisscc's sac awscce sedate setanwes iscOee tcce cc oRuess saNeee Me 1 32 
Tinware, &c 79 50 
1 anchor lost 48 96 
Topmast (broken).... 12 00 
Pam’ and PRIMM ice ccs ili ccc cee de odewcda ccaW ocacees soseuedabaadeens 90 00 


} 


REE atte at 8 ata ban 56 ve ct be cece ood bcad ccc onesies cs cubsos\cawabucase $15 00 
MN Ceo Sar dnesa6 on iecauen use darane edhnens (aes soo eae desacawws os 47 00 
DEIIREES DER con ne eco cnnidcetes coacitvscea arse dscns ceupnciocae savpapos 60 00 
MIRMMNCP LOE saa nin 50 += ema vecces voce pasccccenees sevecs nese scccuscescce cs cece 65 00 
DG UTEERC TORING (cerns coc cce eet oces oe eee tccac ede: eace.van cet ebeeine 163 00 
SEBONIEIE 1OGDOURO cn coo wae ace bi dsce covers thisc tenes s vate cobs soe cdabous ? 43 00 
ic Sa aaa sce ae aan ces Se slse set aeat ices ee clalenavionv needa dawarelacan 539 00 
POTS CODIEID DOP sa <'sscisicee Ma diac c haut tnon accesses tadece.avesldaaccee 465 00 
EN i I eR San ed oe peat = Co i a EO Se se 80 00 
DIL locas s sutwhas% 0's) 2 shia wn ues Wet EhAlns css ccstig Soc lesnckheeses 38 00 
IRIN 050. . cldc wo woes epi os cne Caine saecas sSailes c<cee dhtuns on 14 00 

1, 823 85 


Q. Jib hanks are putin; they are part of the original furniture ?— 
A. I know; but they break some, probably, and have to be repaired. 
Q. You put in ** Marine Railway ”?—A. Well, all the vessels in Glou- 
cester are painted on the Marine Railway. 
@. How many have you in town ?7—A. Six. 
Q. They ar@ hauled up there for repairs?—A. Yes. 
_ . The insurance is for that period of 302 days?—A. Yes. 
| Q. They are insured in a mutual fishing-office?—A. Yes. 
| . I believe it was explained that that mutual office was got up by 
_ fishermen and owners for their own benefit, and conducted on principles 
| peculiar to themselves that were thought to be most beneficial. They 
| don’t insure in the Boston offices ?—A. No, not now; the rates were too 
| high for them. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. I understood this was an actual case for a particular vessel ?—A- 
Yes; the name of the vessel is the Victor, belonging to Joseph O- 
| Proctor. 


| By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 
| Q. Is the sum put in for insurance the actual sum paid ?—A. Yes. 
By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Do you know how old a vessel she was ?—A. She was built in the 
year previous. I don’t kuow what time of the year. 


| By Sir Alexander Galt: 
| 


Q. This statement was prepared for the Centennial 7?—A. Yes; it was 

|prepared for the Centennial, but we did not have room for it to go in 
| the space we had at the time at our disposal, and therefore we had to 
| make the abstract which is contained in the printed broadside. 
| By Mr. Dana: , 
| Pe You gave us your statement for the depreciation of the vessel ?— 
| ae Yes. 
|  Q. Did that include repairs ?—A. Yes, sir. 
| Q. You put them into the depreciation ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, that is considering the depreciation of the vessel to be the 
| amount laid out on her from year to year for repairs. But there will be 
| alittle more depreciation than that, would not there? In point of fact, 
| is not the depreciation of the vessel a little larger than the amount that 
| would be required to repair her ?—A. QO, yes. : 
| Q. For instance, the substantial part of the ship, the hull from the 
| Keelson all the way up, even if that does not require repairs, still if it 


| is of a certain number of years of age it will not sell as well asif new ?—~ 
| A. No, sir. 


} 


2620 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


.  Q. Something lies in the fancy that a new vessel is worth more than 
an old one?—A. There would be that. 
Q. The next item here (on the broadside) is general charges, ice, bait, 
salt, &c. These you have given us, haven’t you ?—A. No; they are 
called miscellaneous charges. They are as follows : 


Miscellaneous charges. 


260 TONS! 1GObe a) Sepa sic ses oo hs wee ha aie oe cio Seba dics as oe eee eee $600 00 
BGI <2 501.2 ois e Sasic sae Rok Sass nes Cleo cea ane ores at ee ewiccecese cents ces 354 00 
pura w lori Dito. > so oce re oo oe Oe ee aloe ence eerenee 10 00 
Dd pall Of NIPPOIBs 22 so ens esses cecsseess sss ceecs Rosie siemens soc cce aceeleeee 27 50 
MOWSPC =. CSociSs abo caceeee ccc cee eae selec ees a acisieur Pies css sececiccoone 50 00 
io LDS: POW GER wc 2 wc ceepn coc oc elas Caw ere on eae eee lnes re waar ee er oeeealsamawe 18 00 
MOU ICITIO: ~ ee oe ois Se ea Se ee et ee eh SNS oe 25 00 
Oil clothes; ONG NRW Soc se seo eee oe ee ee oe Sea eee See Se eee 15 00 
PS hs, Sal6oc- cc Sowa bee tect owe ee ee eee cee cee ore ee ate ae 36 00 

1,135 50 


Q. Can you give us the average life of a fishing-vessel ? @ don’t mean 
how long she will remain a hulk, but take her from the time she is built 
until she ceases to be fit to go.—A. I could not, right off, but I could 
figure it out very shortly. 

Q. Perhaps you don’t care to give us a guess?—A. No. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. I see you are leaving this item respecting the cost. I unders’ood 
him to say he would give us the result of the year’s work of the vessel. 
By Mr. Dana: 


Q. It is on that broadsheet, is it?—A. There is a recapitulation there 
on the broadside. (Reads.) 


RECAPITULATION. 
PUTAWA= SCRE is 8 n2o score eee e patie wa. caa co cewc Sood ponte ne See oe sees Se ene $1, 023 25 
Vessel’s'ox pense account ):o52o22 52s. osc 2onsnos os cease oot Sees eee ae 1, 823 8 
Provisions; &G.2:2 52222 22sjsescsesee ts intra Sane hale ede sonic Se = cas et aise oe 1, 426 03 
Goneral’ charges 2 2.5 oasis oo ate See ee else sa = t eee oe acto a wcoes 1,135 50 
Total:cost of rwBning s.< ses .ss2S-sie02555s55c5e 5-5 is cansaswanesene cs 5, 408 63 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. What was the owner’s share?— A. $5,798.65, and the expenses on 
that were $5,408.63. Then she made about $390. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Now, you say that leaves a amali profit to the owners ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, in making up the charges against the vessel, in the owner’s 
account, he credits himself with that $5,000, which is his share of the 
catch after deducting certain expenses. You charge them enough 
against the ship to leavea small balance. You charge against it, of 
course, the provision account, and the account for repairs 7—A. Yes; it 
is all charged in one account without any division. 

Q. Then, charging the repairs and charging the provision account, 
you leave that result, do you ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then, how do you include a fair compensation to the owner for 
the use of his wharf and buildings and his own time ?—A. That isa 
profit he gets out of the fish after they are landed. 

Q. eek is no special charge made for them ?—A. No; not to the 
vesse 

Q. Well, is there any charge for depreciation on the vessel beyond 


2 2 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - ‘2621 


the expenses of the repairs that are put upon her in that period of 
time ?—A. No. 

Q. You make no charge for depreciation, but you take it to be equal 
to the amount of the repairs ?—A. Well, I presume so. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. In the hypothetical case, yesterday, you allowed $550 for depreci- 
ation for the year; that $550, I understand, will have to pay for the 
repairs ?—A. Yes; I intended that to cover in the same proportion for 
the whole year. 

Q. How much is charged for repairs in these items you give that 
make up the amount,in the. broadside 7—A. It would seem that $100 
would be the amount included in that for repairs. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Then it is perfectly understood that there is no special charge in 
connection with the vessel for the use of the capital—what we call now 
the plant, the wharf and building which are his investment—but that he 
gets his compensation for all that in whatever charges are made for the 
provisions, fitting, &c.?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, these men who are engaged in the fishing business in Glou- 
cester, are they workingmen themselves ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Or are they men who put in their capital and let others take care 
of it?—A. No; they are workingmen. 

Q. In what sense are they workingmen ?—A. Well, most of them go 
on the wharf and work just the same as a laborer on the wharf. They 
see to everything, and lend a hand when it is needed. 

Q. Are they usually men who have had experience either in that busi- 
ness or as fishermen themselves?—A. They have. 

Q. Now, would it be possible, do you think, from your long experience, 
for a man to make a living if he simply invested his capital, as a sort of 
fancy merchant, looking in at times to see how things went, if he didn’t 
give his personal attention to the business, and do a fair day’s work 
overseeing it?—A. You mean whether he would get a living out of it? 
1 think not. 

Q. Are there any such cases down there?—A. You mean vessel-owners, 
Ipresume? No. | . 

Q. Take the case of persons who don’t themselves look after the work, 
but merely invest capital in the fishing and have others looking after it. 
‘Is there such a thing as that known in Gloucester ?—A. No. 

Q. It would not be an investment of any account if you undertook to 
invest your money and leave others to take care of it?—A. I don’t know 
about that. I don’t know any instance where it is done. 

Q. What is your opinion ? Have you a clear opinion ?—A. My opin- 


; ion is that they would not make a great deal on their investments. 


Q. What do you mean ?—A, Well, I mean that they would not get a 
yery large percentage. 

Q. Do you think they would get anything ?—A. I think they would 
get a fair interest on it. 

Q. Would they get more than that ?—A. No, I don’t think they would. 

(Y. Perhaps you didn’t understand me; I don’t mean where a person 
lets his capital to owners, because in that case they will pay interest ; 
but suppose he was to invest his money in a fishing-vessel, simply pay- 
ing for his share?—A. AsI understand, you ask whether the owners 
and fitters of vessels in Gloucester make anything in their business ? 

Q. No, because they incorporate skill and give their daily labor to the 


work. But take the case where a man simply pays for his share in a fish- 


2622 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ing-vessel and gives no attention to the business. Take the case of a 
non-resident. For instance, suppose I should buy a tenth part of a ves- 
sel and pay my proper share of the expenses, but put in no skill or atten- 
tion or time of my own ?—A. I think you would lose it. 

Q. Are there any such cases now that you know of, at Gloucester, 
where people have simply invested in that way, incorporating no care, 
attention, time, labor, or skill of their own ?—A. I don’t know of any. 

Q. Do you know of an attempt of that sort at Salem ?—A. I do. 

Q. How long ago ?—A. I can’t exactly tell. It is within ten years. 

Q. What was it, a sort of joint-stock company ?—A. Yes. Two firms 
moved from Gloucester with their vessels and formed a stock company. 

Q. Were they capable, competent men 7—A. «Yes. 

@. There were no frauds you know of ?—A. No. 

Q. Now, to show what the opinion is generally of the value of one of 
these vessels, is it difficult or not to get money on mortgage at fair 
rates on a fishing-vessel 7—A. No; I think they would have to pay an 
extra rate of interest. 

Q. Are there many such cases of mortgages of vessels ?—A. O, yes; 
I presume so. 

Q. Do you know what interest they have to pay 7—A. [ don’t. 

Q. Now, as to selling vessels, is it an easy thing to sell a fishing-vessel, 
if a man, for instance, desired to go out of the fishing business; is it a 
thing that can be depended upon ?—A. No; there is always a great sac- 
rifice where vessels are sold at a forced sale. 

Q. I don’t mean a forced sale; but suppose he takes time enough, and 
gives notice, and sells at a fair opeu auction sale, is there a loss gener- 
ally ?—-A. There is usually. 

Q. And in settling up estates, how do vessels usually turn out ?—A. 
As a general thing, poorly; during the war there were times when ves- 
sel property sold to advantage. 

Q. For paper ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, is the reason of this that these vessels, being built specially 
for fishing-vessels, they can’t profitably be run except by persons who 
will incorporate in the fishing business their own time and attention 
and skill ?—A. Yes. 

Q. An outside purchaser does not want to buy them?—A. No. 

Q. Explain to the Commission how codfish are now packed and salted. 
—A. When the crew have been settled with, and the fish have been 
weighed, they are pitched into a dory filled by one man from a pump; 
eight men wash the fish, and after they are washed they throw them 
into a wheelbarrow and they are wheeled into the fish-house and deliv- 
ered there to a salter, who salts them, and he has one man to bring him 
the salt. They take four bushels of salt to a butt, and that gang will 
take care of fifty butts in a day; then they are kept in the butts not 
less than ten days, after which they are water-hawsed, by being taken 
from the butts and piled up in piles about three feet high, to drain the 
pickle from them ; this takes two men, and they were employed nine 
days on the trips 1 have in my mind; fifty butts a day are two men’s 
work. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. How many quintals are there in a butt ?—A. There are about eight 
quintals toa butt. Then after they come from being water-hawsed they 
are spread on flakes to dry; it takes four men two days to wheel them 
out, #. ¢., fifty butts. The flakes have three-cornered strips nailed on 
frames resting on horses, in such a way that the frames can be taken 


co 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . - 2623 
down and packed away; while they are drying on the flakes it takes 
four men to tend them, and wheel them in and pile them up after they 
are dry. 

Q. Now they are dried codfish. What is the custom now as to pre- 
paring them for market? The merchants of Gloucester have made 
Gloucester the distributing point. It used to be Boston ?—A. Yes ; 
they send them to all parts of the United States direct. They take 
these fish and cut the tails off, strip them of their skin, and take their 
back-bone out. That is called boneless cod. Then some of them split 
it lengthwise, and others roll them up into rolls, eut them across the roll, 
and stavd them upon end in boxes. There are several, different ways of 
arranging them in the boxes. 

Q. What is the usual size of those boxes ?—A. They are 10, 20, 40, 60, 

80, and 100 pounds. 

Q. Now, they send those boxes all the way from 10 to 100 pounds. 
Formerly codfish were all sold whole, were they not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long has this custom of trimming them and packing them in 
boxes been in existence ?— A. Since 1870. 

~Q. Has it been found successful ?—A. Yes; because it has opened up 
a greater market for the codfish. Before that their bulk prevented their 
being distributed so well. Now, being in a portable shape, they go all 
over the Union. Anywhere they can transport a box of bread they can 
transport a box of fish. It makes labor for a great many hands. 

Q. Now Gloucester has been, as we have seen by its statistics, with 
certain fluctuations, a place of considerable pecuniary resources justify- 
ing a considerable valuation. Will you be so good as to tell the Com- 
mission what resources there are in Gloucester to account for the valu- 
ation of its property, besides what is traceable to the fishing business ? 
All the work of the merchants in connection with the handling of the 
fish, we allow to go in as a part of the fishing industry.—A. There are 
marine railways. 

Q. I don’t care about that. You say you have half a dozen perhaps, 
mainly supported by the fishing business.—A. We have others coming 
from other places for repairs, which makes labor for calkers and painters. 

Q. Then you have large vessels that go to the Mediterranean, Portu- 
gal, and the West Indies ?—A. Some few; not much of that. We Bay © 
an extensive salt business. 

Q. Take the granite, for instance ; what is the valuation of the aS 
business of Gloucester ?—A. The industrial pursuits of Gloucester Pe 
duce a million and a half per annum outside of the fisheries. 

Q. Granite is one of the principal ones?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have an unlimited supply of granite, I suppose ?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. I mean something that you can cut, that lies in quarries?—A. Yes. 
Our valuation is largely increased by it. 

_Q. In the first place there is a great deal of quarrying going on and 
a great many men employed in quarrying stone ?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. That stone is used for pavements in the cities and for house-build- 
ing?—A. Yes; it finds a good market. 

Q. A good many vessels are employed carrying it, or do you send it 
by rail?—A. No; it is sent by steamers and vessels. 

Q. Gloucester exports its granite as prepared from the quarries in the 
neighborhood ?—A. Yes. 

|] wor Are there any other reasons for the increase in the valuation ?—A. 
ih Well, summer residences bring in considerable. 

| — You mean persons who do business and whose personal property 
| 


A eee 


ee 


2624 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and investments are elsewhere ?—A. Yes, and who have summer resi- 
dences in Gloucester. 

Q. That is because of the salubrity of the climate, and the ocean 
scenery? There has been a great deal of that?—A. Yes. 

Q. Parts of Gloucester have been built up entirely 7—A. Yes. 

(). Manchester and Magnolia ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then down towards Eastern Point Light ?—A. Well, there are four 
or five summer boarding-houses there. 

Q. Then you have summer boarding-houses, and the hotels in summer 
depend to a large extent on summer boarders ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, has all that led to an increase in the value of lands ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The soil is not very fertile, I believe?—A. No. It is rocky. 

Q. And, as I recollect, there is not a great quantity of it?—A. No. 

Q. Its value, independent of what is given to it as a place of summer 
residence, would be small ?—A. I think it would. 

Q. Now, do you recollect anything else besides what you have men- 
tioned—granite, outside business, and summer residence? Are there 
eases of men in Boston, whose business is in Boston, and whose real 
bona-fide home is there, but who yet reside in Gloucester long enough to 
pay taxes there?—A. Yes. 

Q. In some cases, men of very large fortune?—A. Yes. 

(). A man died there the other day worth a couple of millions or so. 
He was a manufacturer and general merchant living in Boston ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. One question about insurance. Does that company which you 
speak of insure to the full value of the vessel ?—A. They do not. 

Q. Do you recollect to what proportion 7—A. Yes. 

(). Do you recollect whether it is three fourths or seven-eighths ?— 
A. I won’t say positively. 

q. But there is a portion that the owner has to pay himself ?—A. Yes. 

. Do they pay every loss, or only over a certain percentage of the 
value ?—A. Only over a certain percentage. I think it is 12 per cent. 

Q. At all events, whatever the percentage, there may be a series of 
losses that the owner has to bear himself, that do not amount to enough 
to make a partial loss?—A. No. If they are run into, for instance, and 
damaged by one another, they do not get anything, unless it is overa 
certain percentage of the value. 

Q. Have youa copy of the fishing articles of Gloucester fishermen 7— 
A. No. ; 

Q. Can you state from your own knowledge of their provisions, or — 
how they have ever been construed, as to the legal right of the men to 
take their own fish, subject to the incumbrances. Do you know how 
that is?—A. No. The cases of fishermen wanting to take his own fish | 
are very rare indeed. They are always satisfied with the settlement) 
they make with the owners. | 

Q. We should like to have the book which contains the by-laws of 
the insurance company; also, a copy of the cod-fishing articles and 
mackerel-fishing articles. That would be interesting.—A. I will send 
them. 

Q. There was a man named Joseph Campbell, of Souris, Prince Ed-| 
ward Island, examined as a witness. He was asked: “In 1860 what. 
vessel did you go in?” and answered, ‘‘ the Daniel McPhee.” He was 
asked: “ Where did you go?” and answered, ‘ We went to the bay. We. 
landed and took dories and went up to Seven Islands again. There we* 
got 80 barrels at the same place as before. From that we went further 
up toa place called Boubou, and got twenty or thirty barrels there close 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2625 


to the shore. We then crossed to the southern side to Griffin’s Cove and 
picked up about twenty or thirty barrels there. We then crossed to 
Gaspé, then to Bay Chaleurs, picking up more or less every day. We 
were line-fishing then. We gave up the boats after leaving Seven Is- 
lands. We went to North Cape, Prince Edward Island, to finish our trip. 
We made only one trip and went home.” Then he was asked: “ What 
was your catch ?” and answered, “‘ We got 280 barrels; that was in 1860.” 
Then he was asked: “ Did you take them outside the limits?” and an- 
swered, “We did some.” Then to the question, ‘* What proportion ?” 
he answered, “ Sixty or seventy barrels at the outside.” Now you have 
been requested to examine into this matter. Have you any personal 
knowledge of the Daniel McPhee ?—A, I owned a portion of her in 1860. 
Q. You may state from your own knowledge what was the truth of 
that matter ?—A. To the best of my knowledge Joseph Campbell was 
not in the schooner. She landed 17 barrels of mackerel, and was gone 
about three months. 
Q. That you state of your own knowledge ?—A. Yes. 
Q. You mean that was the whole trip ?—A. That is what she packed 
ont. 
Se Have you looked to see whether this man was in the vessel ?—A. 
Ihave. 
Q. There was no such man ?—A. No, sir; I can give you the names 
of the crew if you want them. 
Q. No matter. Now, the same witness is asked, and answers as fol- 
OWS: 
Q. In 1861, what did you do?—A. I was in the R. H. Oakes, Captain Nasen. 
- Q. What time did you come down ?—A. The 15th of July. 
Q. Was that early ?7—A. It is notearly. Itisafair time. We did not find them bite 
' where we first fished, and we went up to Bay Chaleurs. We got about 120 barrels 
| there—about 90 barrels inside and the rest outside. 
Q. That would be 30 barrels outside?—A. Yes, about that. We fished off Miscou 


| and got about 20 or 30 barrels off shore. We then came down the shore to Escu- 
) tinac, and picked up more or less every day along the shore. 

Q. Close in or off ?—A. Close in. ‘ 

Q. Where did you get your next catch ?—A. We got 5 or6 barrels along the shore to 
| the leeward of the island (Prince Edward Island). There we got 70 or 80 barrels in 
| one day, close in. 

if Within the limits?—A. Between two and three miles. 

. What was the total result 7—A. One hundred and thirty barrels. 
Q. What did you do with them ?—A. We took them back to Gloucester. 
Q. Did you make only one trip ?—A. I made only one tripin her. I left her at Glou- 


r. 
Q. What were fish bringing then ?—A. They were low. In 1861 mackerel brought 
| from $12 to $13 and $14 a barrel. That was the yeer the war broke out. 

_ . Q. Now, can you tell us about the R. H. Oakes and this man Camp- 
_bell?—A. The R. H. Oakes in 1861 fitted about the last of June and 
| ' returned October 26. The vessel packed out 2254 barrels of mackerel, 
| from which Campbell’s share was $39.01. 
|, He was on board that time?—A. Yes; the number ones of this 
| trip sold for $7; number twos, $5), ; and the number threes at $3. 
| Q. Then the same witness is asked, and answers as follows: 

Q. Did you fish any more that year?—A. I went home and fished on the home shore; 
| | that is, the American shore, in the fall of 1862, in the Daniel McPhee. 
Q. What did you catch there ?—A. We caught 40 barrels. 
| _Q. Now, what can you tell us about fishing on the American shore in 

_ the Daniel McPhee, in the fall of 1862 ?—A. In 1862 the schooner Dan- 
\‘iel MePhee packed out on the fall trip, from October 4 to November 8, 

| 135 barrels of mackerel. 

} 


165 F 


2626 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What do you make of his statement that it was 40 barrels 7—A. I 
can’t make anything out of it. 

Q. Now, there is a man, Ronald McDonald. On page 396 of the tes- 
timony he is asked and answers as follows: 

Q. Have you fished in American vessels 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many years ?—A. About seven summers. 

Q. When did you first go in an American schooner ?—A. About 1859 or 1860. 

Q. What is the name of the first vessel?—A. Daniel McPhee, Gloucester, Daniel. 
McPhee, captain. 

Q. Where did you fish ?—A- We began to fish along the island toward North Cape, 
Prince Edward Island. 

Q. And you fished along at all the usual places ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What did you catch that year ?—A. About 200 barrels for the season. 

Q. How far from shore did you usually fish ?—A. We fished mostly all over the bay. 
The principal part of the fish we got on the Canada shore and Cape Breton shore and 
along the islund. We caught a few on Bank Bradley, and some up northward, about 
Margaree. The principal part we got on the Cape Breton shore. 


Now, can you tell us anything about this man in the Daniel McPhee, 
either in 1859 or 1860 ?—A. In 1859 she was on the stocks. 

Q. Did she afterwards go off under command of Daniel McPhee ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. To the gulf?—A. Yes. . 

Q. With what result ?—A. The first trip was 17 barrels of. mackerel, 
ef which Ronald McDonald’s share was 35 cents. On the second trip 
she got 1225, and Ronald McDonald was not one of the crew. 

Q. Now, there is a deponent named William H. Molloy, whose afti- 
davit was put in on behalf of the British Government. He says: 

The result of my last year’s operations is as follows: 

Total catch thirty-seven hundred quintals for the season, three Banking trips; value 
thereof about seventeen thousand dollars; expenses of wages, crew’s share of voyage, 
outfit and provisions was about twelve thousand dollars, leaving a clear profit to the 
owner of about five thousand dollars. Theowner derives a considerable profit also from 
the difference between the prices he allows the crews for their share of fish, and what 
it is worth to him in the market, by which he would gain on the quantity above stated 
about eighteen hundred dollars. 

What have you to say to that ?—A. I think that Captain Mulloy does 
not seem to understand his business. In the first place he exaggerates 
the number of vessels that are on the Banks from Gloucester, and then 
he goes on and gives an account of the profits. Take his own state- 
ment. I have made up alittle memorandum. The expenses of the ves- 
sel, he says, are $12,000; shrinkage and cost of curing 3,700 quintals, 
at $1 per quintal, is $3,700, which gives $15,700. It sells 30,132 quin- 
tals, dry, for $4.80 per quintal, equal to $14,462.40, leaving a loss of 
$1,237.60 instead of $6,800 gain. | 

Q. Then you say his own calculation does not produce the results ?— 
A. Not what he states. 

Q. In point of fact, has he made his statement correctly 7—A. I 
should say that 3,700 quintals of codfish caught by a vessel one season 
was a very large catch, and to make three trips, and make a full aver- 
age each trip, is a remarkably suecessful year’s voyage. 

Q. Then he speaks of the difference between the price allowed the 


crew for their share of the fish, and what it is worth in the market, and|_ 


says the owner would gain on the quantity above stated about $1,800. 

If he takes the value of the fish in the same state in which they are 

landed they are worth no more to the owners than the crew ?—A, No. 
Q. Their superior value is the result of labor and skill afterward put 


upon them?—A. Yes. Fish are never bought in Gloucester, to my* 


rr ii er ——— 


knowledge, by the quintal from a vessel. The price of fish last year 


was $2.75 per 100 pounds from the vessel, green. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2627 


By Mr. Whiteway: 

Q. Is not that a quintal?—A. 114 pounds are a quintal. 
By Mr. Dana: ; 

Q. He further says: 


The owner in my case above cited settled with the crew at two dollars and seventy- 
five cents = quintal as weighed out of the vessel, the market value of which fish 
ewhen cured was four dollars eighty cents per quintal; the loss in weight, which is very 
trifling, and labor in curing, would not cost more than one dollar per quintal. 

A. I took his own figures when I made my estimate. 

Q. Is that a correct statement ?—A. I took his statement for that. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 


Q. How do you think it is?—A. I don’t suppose it is a great way out 
_of the way, taking into consideration the rent of the wharf and so forth. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. About $1 per quintal?—A. I should think so. I have not figured 
it up to get it exactly, but he is not a great way out of the way. 

Q. Is there anything else in his statement ?—A. He makeg a compari- 
| son of two vessels; one under the Washington Treaty with the privilege 
| of going into Newfoundland and buying fresh bait, and he reckons that 
| that vessel would make three trips a season, while the vessel not under 
| the Washington Treaty, and restricted from going in there, would only 
| make one trip. 

Q. What has the Washington Treaty to do with the right to go in 
‘there and buy bait?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Suppose it had, what has that to do with three trips ?—A. It is 
| fallacious statement in regard to three.trips in comparison with one, 
| because I think our vessels will make as many trips without the privi- 
‘lege of going into Newfoundland as they can with it. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. You have spoken of the statements made by Captain Campbell 

) aud Roland McDonald with regard to the vessel called Daniel McPhee ?— 

| A. I have. 
 Q. Are you owner of the vessel ?—A. I was. 

- Q. And you have your books here?—A. I have not. 
@. When were you requested to look up the accuracy of Campbell’s 
'statement—since you came here ?—A. No, in Gloucester. 

Q. And what did you do in order to test its accuracy? I suppose, 
‘Tegarding that portion where he states where the fish were taken, you 
\have nothing to say ?—A. No. 

Q. ron deny the accuracy of the statement that so many were taken? 
—A, do. 

Q. Have you a statement of the names of the crew for the year 7?—A. 
Ihave a statement of the crew’s names on that first trip. The names 
are as follows: Daniel McPhee, master; Ronald McDonald, Michael 
' onald, H. Sinclair, Alex. Cameron, George M. Reed, Joseph 
‘MeDonald, Joseph McPhee, Johfi Rogers, Joseph Silva, Daniel McIntire, 
‘William Wilder West, Thomas Johnson, Paul McNeil. She landed her . 
dories when. she returned with that trip. 

-Q. Having been requested to examine the accuracy of this statement, 
did you take the trouble to.look at your books for more than one year.” 
‘to see whether there had been a mistake in the year?—A. I did. 

Q. What did you find ?—A. I did not find any. 
Q. Will you give me a statement of the returns made by the vessel 


| 


I 


2628 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


for the year preceding and following ?—A. In 1861 he testified he was 
on the R. H. Oakes, another of my vessels. 

Q. I ask you to give me the return of the vessel in 1861 ?—A. I don’t 
understand what you mean by return. 

Q. A statement of the number of barrels of mackerel landed ?—A. I 
can give you the number of barrels of mackerel landed. 

Q. And the names of the crew in her?—A. Yes. 

Q@. I observe you have your book with you?—A. Yes; my trip-book 
for 1861 and 1862, not for 1860. 

q. You did not bring the book for the year in regard to which we are 
speaking ?—A. The book is not in existence. 

Q. How did you get at this?—From my journal. 

Q. Did you bring your journal ?—A. I did not. 

Q. You did not bring the book itself relating to the very year on 
which this man testified, and the correctness of whose testimony you 
dispute ?—A. No. 

Q. You brought a book relating to the following year ?—A. The only 
trip-book I had. 

Q. You brought a book for the following year ?—A. For the follow- 
ing two years. 

Q. Did it not strike you as a little carious that, when asked to dis- 
pute the accuracy of a man’s statement, you should dispute it and bring 
a book relating to the following year to that in question, and leave the 
book at home that would settle the question ?—A. I thought that my 
evidence and the list of the crew would be enough. I am on my oath. 

Q. So was Campbell. Why did you bring the book for the next year ? 
You were not asked to verify or dispute any statement for the next 
year ?—A. No. 

Q. Why did you omit to bring the book for the year respecting which 
you were asked to contradict Campbell’s statement ?—A. I brought the 
trip-book which shows the catches of mackerel. 

Q. You say you lost the previous trip-book ?—A. He was in another 
vessel of mine afterward. 

Q. If you have lost that trip-book, how are you able to tell exactly 
what catch he made ?—A. It is entered in my journal. 

Q. Is each man’s account transferred to the journal ?—A. Yes. 


Q. So that the journal would have done just as well as the trip- 


book ?—A. It is a heavier and more bulky book. 

Q. But it would have all the information ?—A. I presume it would. I 
ees have brought it, but I had Mr. Steele’s books, which are very 

eavy. 

Q. I notice that Capt. Joseph Campbell, of Souris, who was examined 
very nearly the beginning of this Commission, and Ronald McDonald, 
who was called toward the close, there being, I think, four or five weeks 
between the times at which they were called, testified on oath the facts 
respecting that vessel, and with the exception of the number of barrels 
spoken to by them, on which there is only a small difference, they agree 
with regard to the trip, the places where the mackerel were taken, and 
everything 7—A. Yes. 

Q. I fancy there must be some explanation of the matter, and there 
must be a mistake about the year ?—A. Here is the record for 1861. 
The vessel was not built in 1859. 

(. Campbell said: 

We went to the bay. We landed and took dories and went up to the Seven Islands 


again. There we got 80 barrels at the same place as before. From that we went 
fuither up to a place called Boubon and got twenty or thirty barrels there close to the 


+ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2629 


shore. We then crossed to the southern side, to Griffin’s Cove, and picked up about 
twenty or thirty barrels there. We then crossed to Gaspé, then to Bay Chaleurs, pick- 
ing up more or less every day. We were eee, then. We gave up the boats 
after leaving Seven Islands. We went to North Cape, Prince Edward Island, to finish 
our trip. e made only one trip, and went home. 

Q: What light will the book for 1861 throw on the matter 7—A. It 
merely gives the names of the crew and what they caught. The vessel 
was not built in 1859. 

Q. One of the witnesses stated that fishermen sometimes enter them- 
selves under different names. Is that a fa@ within your knowledge ?— 
A. They sometimes do. 

Q. It is possible Campbell may have entered himself under a different 
name in that vessel 7—A. That is true. 

Q. Is this the return of the trips into the bay, or of the trips on your 
shore ?—A. The trips to the bay ; on the other side is a return of shore 
trips. 

Q. Are those Mr. Steele’s books ?—A. No; my own. 

-Q. How are you able to state at this distance of time which refers to 
bay and which to shore trips, with the trips not divided ?7—A. By the 
time of year. 

a The shore trips will be after the vessels return in October ?—A. 
es. 

Q. It seems by this that the vessel took 80 barrels on the shore. 


’ That is just what Campbell said : 


Q. Only 40 barrels. That was in 1861 that you got 80 barrels there in the fall trip, 
and in 1862 you got 40 barrels?—A. Yes. 

That is right, within six barrels ?—A. In the fall of 1861 was he in 
the Daniel McPhee? Is his name among the crew for that shore-trip ? 

Q. His name does not appear here (in the book). If he was there he 
must have been under another name ?—A. I don’t think he was in her 


in the fall trip. Does he say he was with Captain Hunter ? 


Mr. DAvIEs. The preceding questions were the following: 
Q. Did you fish any more that year ?—A. I went home and fished on the home-shore, 


_ that is, the American shore, in the fall of 1862, in the Daniel McPhee. 


Q. What did you catch there ?—A. We caught 40 barrels. 
By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. Do you know Campbell ?—A. I don’t remember him; I would know 
him if I saw him. 
By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Do you know whether the Daniel McPhee made more than one 
shore-trip in the fall of 1862?—A. In 1862, from July 27 to October 4, 


_ she was bay-fishing; from October 4 to November 8, shore-fishing. 


>) 


Q. Do your vessels, fishing on your shore, make short or long trips ?— 
A. Sometimes short and sometimes long. 

Q. If the vessel made two trips, his statement may be perfectly cou- 
sistent with yours ?—A. She was only employed in 1862 one month and 
four days on the shore. 

Q. He says about three weeks.. Is it not possible she may have made 
two trips ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Is Captain McPhee at Gloucester ?—A. He is dead. 

Q. What is your impression with regard to the statements made by 
these two men, corroborating each other substantially, and made at dif- 
ferent times?—A. My impression is that they are mistaken altogether 
in regard to their catch and where they fished. 


2630 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ee How would you know where they fished; you were not there ?~ 
Pie: INOS 

Q. Therefore you cannot know personally; why, then, do you make 
that statement ?—A. Because, in the fall of the year, on the second 
trip, they never got it at Seven Islands with dories, and she landed. her 
dories when she came home on her first trip. 

@. Campbell says they commenced the trip at Seven Islands; are you 
prepared to contradict that ?—A. I am. 

Q. In what way ?—A. Beeause she returned home having caught only 
17 barrels. 

Q. I am speaking regarding the places where the fish were caught.— 
A. She left her dories at Gloucester after the first voyage. They could 
not get 280 barrels with her dories when they were on my wharf. 

Q. I am asking you with reference to places where they fished. You 
say you can contradict Campbell’s statement; how do you contradict it ? 
—A. I cannot contradict it from personal knowledge. 

Q. How can you state you believe it to be incorrect 7—A. From evi- 
dence I know is in existence in regard to it. 

Q. To what evidence do you refer ?—A. I refer to a deposition in the 
hands of counsel. 

Q. You are speaking in regard to some deposition in the hands of 
counsel, and you base your evidence on that ?—A. I do not. 

Q. That is the affidavit of another man; put that aside at present. 
From your own knowledge, can you pretend to say that Campbell’s state- 
ment is not correct as to where he.fished ?—A. I cannot believe it is true 
when a man says he fished in a certain place, when he says they caught 
one barrel here and eighty barrels there, and I know the vessel only 
packed out 17 barrels; I cannot believe the statement to be true. 


Q. It is unfortunate that the trip-book for 1860 is not here?—A. I — 


regret it more than anything else. My little girl asked me last year for 


a book, and I cut the leaves out, never supposing it would be wanted. | 


Q. Can you tell me of any other vessel in 1860 which returned from 
a trip in Bay Chaleurs with 17 barrels or anything like that ?—A. The 
schooner Annah, another of my vessels, returned from the bay with 41’ 
barrels. 

Q. What size was she 7?—A. She was about 50 tons. 


July, and returned 12th September. 


| 


Q. What time of the year did she go into the bay 7—A. She went 5th | 


Q. What was the highest catch made by any of your vessels that | 


year ?—A. 3364 barrels. 
Q. Will you explain to the Commission what this statement purports 1 
to be ?—A. A table showing the voyages of my vessels during 1860, 
1861, and 1862. 
Witness banded in the following statement: 


. 
_ 
oD 
a 
18 I f21t/st “son, O9 er au | 
; BT "yy ‘pe * 290 ‘ 
P ccalet| 0G oF 18 om 89 2e'T F | di ha 
TT 086% D OF 1% ou b S26 | | 1 Say 
1998/91 pos wr they Ie ALOF 21 ‘ET 390 raale oe 
= 18 wr 't | ese 20 04 85 “BUY joc seat [20 | Faas jon 1 ay | 
S pushes CUiCT tg nom enrna ¢ ChL cL ecg‘ 4 Teoma ov 1180 | seen crete 
= ny" & seelee eee 
D $9 |91) “AO uous ‘es 38 Thr cet He Por Ute Ne eos 
aD Se orery | NT 07 * CL LOY‘ : ny 0} a kes f PES bases 
et 3 mee € ‘AON rT Foue | Imp * gpoune |°*- eee 3 | | 
5 is Pf eer OL @L6'T 0 LT Sgt Ar a Pear ae eee es ie eerie. (ae rar 
190 ‘T 18 aS smsacas £21 ‘% | O€ yng “ or Amp °° Se seteee reece | 9\°"10 
a RCTibT| ‘AO ous ‘ET CL 963 'T | OT ‘AON soul ¢ ! Pee nee epee re ee [OPT \e9RT| “"* 
ae eoones os N 09 18 3008 iia ‘glee | 7 oe) OF Se = Re eee Fe abt Se loos ‘b |--|---° “s1)109 "DT" 
o SbL “AON ONS TE LG GOOF tT ‘LT *A0 ah ie a ee soot se cana fiee« ts | 1981} "°°" ‘LT aAqoS 
9¢ FE0'T Nv 04 Te -adog RL 69e'T | CLEFT ox on gt At fea beaten (ole aca see|oeeee 804¥0 "H 
e corp ‘8 “AON OF FID sg exe't |---7"7* 4 cent me woot ans |e me] ~ ane ee ei eis tog 
«ST 07 6 WO 198 “| ak eae 1G 0UNL 96 ce'g |g Ayn Uae ee upon EERE 6 | 
ee] cho teg ‘ou 698 PE F “qdog 04 ( ny ‘QI 166 06 Pet eines fees | 198)f°s3e""°° 
€T) ‘Ao oys ‘¢ POLS | ‘DpL- 1%) poune | B LET'S | 1S wT |sdraq py‘ slg eteeeee 
D =r asl NC 04 FL Um PPG] ‘Pb ae Aled peepee Isoune |p * cir bat pr fa | 91 SIT \o98T|* od + 
me tEI\pI “AO 70H 16 OLT 0% 16 4 veseeeelenes TW oe Hil pe Na 6 ((e) YSVpT 91300 
--e lige fe Nob st dog ze 68 9¢ 96F  |f98 Se | Sloot as seteees Reta le 9 eee ‘legen s+ ta “98 
ic] “8 ae |e1 ‘8990 “9.1008 3¢ 68 ees €1) ‘bT beahd tiara - T gee'3 | 13 4 2 Poor a ote (30) ae seereest og 
tr bt acta o4 FL ydog | 5 asap mal et ads 6 0 BE es, -- nae te a Lil a 
BS Ie ‘81400 09 890 OLS 80 pr| ‘ar dog on grout 1€ 60h 'T 91 "| sduy g ‘F Dee os ee sk 
2 66ag te |r 04 £390 | | sy bet cea 04 grown 018 ‘€ | 88° er eee \"** Jo981)"99¢ 2 
bE eT “A “O10 48 LE 9€ BT ‘LT’ ah "pL° CIOL LEO ‘T | 4deg SEO 42 ‘sXe A Pt moe ; pavg * 
a AON 04:98 ‘88 6 es LI “adog 09 Lugs O't |trrtteee coven nae & aur or 77/98 A PIL “AW9g 
° s FR0e el Riso 7 wy han {0 Lob Le 6 Feoe Cy eee 13 Sle ai 9¢ 689 GB oun | pT puw Sains po | |G qlocotoc co oeeeee 
eGusecen | 0} | cz‘ i hs 04 seme ewee "IB the c; 7a het tk “"O 
A al (eee Leal Pea te BL ‘3deg |20 96 | 663 1 Loge cl ance “Dp La ots ae oa I Aine KW | pus petal | ov'**' {tga - a 
. ee cap | a eae Oe rine T 390 oF 11 A . T |L9 L265 ‘€ G cape ped SantoDE> 006 Bay 
eee PSB eae 31 | oe i SHUNH “PT INE /6T S > | 11 Ayn di13.9'Surys D | L 77 loget: “od 
5 = mares ad 98 FO BIR 11 ‘3do0g Ue cs C86 sk’ fir “49, mieten UPD 000 ! RI} eo qo 
4 ends) [at seeees|eee HO Ges 16% | ‘ado 09 OF Ayn % 813‘s | 114 | pus F UypMBay iB foctene: OW porug * 
a = sree: npiibiaeee neatae £ |se e¢9' T Aine | & poe Boyteg-Do ogat| ">> fu “NOS 
= eS bt + (ome Fee Hee ea ek AON RoE ee Tale Peiees cB ‘URE wong yaa) senses Ree Seen seni 
, : 2 |e 4 ee ae ee #9 GLO 'T Sh Bes‘ i hi a bod hs al ons 9 vc, | alah i a - = 
7 —_ 1] | meee meats 5 eal ae 5 heey 
FF 4/3 |e “+69 998! 896 eee on og 
; ‘Sayjoro & 2 [oof fee] = aoe 9 998 ‘eg}"7 to 10 | 1S “TBI eaepisanmen” aes FC fC hae 
: dur yovur : et) S Seat ee : : pas TT MB19 eH tess ore 
( iy io hs 5 €3 "99 paw Buy : od 
pucoeg D | : &, 4 a 4° 8) LT “49, saiineen eas Peres ogg" s 
z |? ae ~ |——— a {orpuesun Ae al a ea rand. 9 °0* 
© < —s B SUL ; Quo 
| eer de | = eure sane peopel es <= eek See 
, bs Ny {ITT +e ° — | ———__ | — | ‘ 1 ano aaa 7 
(‘L281 & o =r . a no vostudD “ayog 
*29RT ‘Joqmejdog ‘av Ed Es L | uo F ; = z | g 5, 
pun ‘T9at ‘ or 2 Ss Surys B |e! & 8 
wit 1 ‘098 preg « is poo pu y } | Ls 
sia 1 suvah 9 q ‘MOT “ALP mque | 4 ‘ 
9.90. so amey, peace pa: é “0 
ja4ayoou OT 79 I} % Tes#04 Jo om 
aca sehbeaiiei tit jo way oyy = UN 
aie aE Sey ui poawoiie- ened 
ee M OIF PO “ 
— —_— ; d 
mz _ ’ F 4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2632 


‘suvok EULOS PBS *Ajwwok 
89.118 166 
__ {18 ob ‘oseaoa'y 
18 GL'G |T L3E‘S |EL OFL ‘LEGO TEE ‘8% #608 ‘%| 880 ‘b\""" “savod g B[OBBOA g 
“eros "lbh SEE JOT GBL'T JOM TeS‘T |-"°""""" 8h OSE = bh G26 'S [Ente |feop |ovcccee espe aia |: eats nee" ss (BPS OCE= IZORT cee @Tean Chek) Peau OS 


‘od | 
-AoA puvlpunoy 
-MON WO 48OT SUA | 


‘TOBL Up AkoT TOBA |o="""*"-"]-"oe tee" lOm GOB [40 OSS [TIGL BOL [4B TLh'T | 2g | Gay [eeesseees|eoe sees sfeeee|-eleeeeeeecesesecoeing gig lrgagls*=*someo “Hy “a ‘aqOS 


Od PSIEINO PIII gta. [oe gem ¢ Hee Hen fog pes. 90 exe fez Jou! “seat 04 st 490 Jao ost Janat]--°7--770727--0n 
“yuode puv 40 &0 BLE ‘SZ |erees: egg . sect ceoee hae wee @68 19Bl| "ToT Og 
“a Mo “Ok Sd <1 12 C8 el Re ee ee ee seme eweley, sweeter wale ence ee er 
eth Ho) RI SP Be i pee em Lope UO Pan al daslicinad linet calesmesseas caecues thee sot Eee eee ee 
“OO8T UT Mou [asso A jst t tt “4 ot 5 oe ie aes eseetewus GL 190 T [GL OSE T. i ce el REA Bi Ae pelea) acweats Pinion |CONOGS” VBR Ecce. oe OUD 
““"*"***-18b $8 (66 1808'S [LP Obb'S |---*77*7* 9G FEO! be lEGee Lee Laces: westsescs.s>ooxcntoclbe fetesdaccet eas iCocee, 4 lOmteeantays) ec, een ane 
Pee eee eee crecrear RUE EOE tre POG No a IIITG9 Bue fogty “rT ea 
. ‘ ewwncoses Pot td Pe ars eg LAL a De eee a ee aoa falar weeeee *=""|cQ SEe bio) | REA SCS Gg 
O98T Uy MOU [9880A /98 SIT T 00 GEG "E |PL OIL'S Sr SCE OBS Nimes tle go te | ee ate Spats 0, He OL 00L 0981) SOU qoW joraeq ‘“ayog 
ERO R Te: ee ne 0S we 699 ‘T 60 CTL T ee es es ee ee ey OLL Ip rai} 6%6 er fel -* ‘AON 7 8 790 iz 89L 098T, "°° yBuUy “yg 
‘ reas > 2 8 LT 
APBLOTS s9j0g Trogepiresbrort|rocescoscyecreseessdeoreseeeslzg 068 (ec 8108 | 228 [feos [ob SIS [eb e9018| SEEITT * gr: j cS iri 
. Wreck snes ; ° TT| “AON 04 81 "400 |€8 GE [@ 
P& GBS 9€ Ste ‘S BL OFL‘T PSC SE SME CIOS AR 68 6G6 ‘I$]EpE fees cL ovones (satu weane|cewt| uulesmacns oomen esos £6 86 — Bbeds<cnssenessgee 


teanbeswel ‘ ‘ Fed || ter att ool Ee ne 5 “OLOYS “ULY ‘fZ 
‘epuvy [fe WTA 08 T£6 'T |0€ £16 °% JOL SOs ‘s srerseeeltrge | $G [0G Bre ‘IH}"""""*"* "|FeGsl--| “AON 09 ET 300 |F9 eRe ‘THO9BT| "°°" SIAC ‘CQ ‘CQ ‘ANOS 


‘1981 “90 48o et www wns ‘ ‘ ‘ eoeccscuce ewww wrl ewes ew eele sew comme lewes| sewer esas s eaesasiseeaseees Dd ted te 
Fi at 88 006 I [b9 98E‘T \68 9EL'T 60 BIes #96 1981)" om 


6S81 ul MOT E880 A ee www wee g¢ 6r9s ep GLB ‘ES!10 C86 ‘ed e9 O98 6b)" 8" 22* ewer rceas|sacwas|seecers|seeeseses|ssesesses| Besi,cjcceseeeseseaeees <eeis'** >> = 008T crroee- = BOBTULY “IWOG 
aes Ba ee ee ee ee eae = oe eer 
a eek | Es | wok S 3 Se ieuielt cette = | Bie = ie 
25 abs ae) aa) 42 ¢ |S 4 |e 2 
ge | 883 ae Bee | Fo E e ta aE 8 & &, |& a a 
; 3 g°o| fe | S| EB | 83 84 |? El ee) a ; a he ao 
BYAVULOY, ty Ee me aaa @S os ot 2, as |, 8| 28 2 “Buyjoro your Ma . A 
oo) 9 Ps | 64 we | 8&2 | BE | Be | BE oe] & diay pags, é JosHOA Jo OLE 
oh g 2 4% a 2B w ef| Re oe 3 
=. @ @ & =z je all = $ 
=o oo 2 . g ~s Q Co 7 
er om i ee , S | rs 5 
a Bt ae NN eee tlh Oy oa a 3 ia BE 4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - (2633 


Q. When was it prepared ?—A. It was prepared before I left home. 

Q. What was the tonnage of the Daniel McPhee ?—A. About 60 
tons, I think. 

Q. You prepared this statement yourself ?—A. Yes. 

q. From your own books ?-—A. Yes. 

Q. Will you read the colamn of catches in which the 17 barrels ap- 
peared ?—A. 54, 2308, 2634, 41, 17, 864, 244, 207, 275, 325, 310, 3264, 
385, 57. They are shore and gulf mixed. 

Q. Will you take out the shore ?—A. 57, 864. 

Q. The catches on your shore appear to be small compared with the 
others ?—A. The 864 barrels were caught in five days off our shores. 

Q. But the small catches appear to have been taken on your shore; 
the 300-barrel catches you have read were taken in the bay ?—A. Not 
all of them. - 

Q. I asked you to read those which were caught on your shores; you 
did read them; were not the 300-barrel catches taken in the bay ?—A. 
Yes; those were caught in the gulf. 

Q. Don’t you think it is more probable that, as your trip-book is lost, 
which would be conclusive evidence on that point, you are mistaken as 
to 17 barrels having been caught in the gulf on that trip, because Camp- 
bell’s name does not appear on the list of the men who were in the ves- 
sel when 17 barrels were taken ?—A. No; I am positive he was not in 
the vessel in the gulf that trip. 

Q. Could he have deliberately coined the statement that he was in 
the gulf and took that number of barrels? His name does not appear 
in the list of the crew when the 17 barrels were taken ?—A. It does'not 
appear in the list. 

Q. You explained toward the close of your examination the right of 
fishermen to take their fish and sell them elsewhere; when a vessel re- 
turns to Gloucester, does not the merchant, when the fish are landed, 
pack them?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is a matter with which the fishermen, as fishermen, have 
nothing to do?—A. Nothing to do with packing out. _ 

Q. Therefore, if he were allowed to take his fish, he would have to 
pay the merchant the packing charges ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They would amount to $2 a barre] ?—A. That was the cost in cer- 
tain years; it is now $1.75. 

. Q. So that practically it is never done ?—A. No. 

Q. It is also well understood that the merchant will have a lien on 
the fish caught for any advances made the fishermen ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The practical working of the system is that the fisherman does 
“A take his fish elsewhere ?—A. I don’t know of any case where they 

id. . 


_- Q. One of the witnesses from Gloucester stated here that it was the 


custom for the ship-merchants to agree among themselves as to the price 
they will allow the fishermen for the fish when they pack out. Is 
that correct 7—A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. How do the merchants arrange? Does one pay $10, another $11, 
aud another $13, and are different prices paid to fishermen for their fish 
at the same port ?—A. For mackerel ? ' 

Q. Yes.—A. No; because trips are hardly ever sold at the same prices 
three days running. . 

- Q. I am speaking with regard to the price the merchant allows the 
fishermen; whether the merchants agree among themselves to allow so 
much ?—A. The crew get the price at which the whole trip is sold. 


. 


> 


2634 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. But the whole trip of mackerel may be held over for a year, sales 
depending on the market ?—A. The crew would hold over with him. 

Q. Do you mean to say that, if a crew came in in October, they would 
not be paid when the packing out took place ?—A. No. 

Q. They might hold over till next spring ?—A. If there is not a mar- 
ket for the fish the fish cannot be sold, so the crew cannot be settled 
witb, and the cargo remains on the wharf till it is sold. 

Q. Don’t they agree on a price? Does not the merchant buy the fish 
from the men ?—A. Sometimes they will settle in that way, and the 
merchant will take them at a price. 

Q. Did you ever know a case where a cargo has remained on a wharf 
all winter waiting for a rise in price ?—A. I do; I had several vessels in 
1860, the trips of which I kept over. 

Q. And did not pay the men ?—A. Not all of thein; some of them 
kept their fish in store, and I did not settle with them. 

Q. How many of them did so ?—A. I could not tell. 

Q. Is it the general and invariable rule ?—A. That was an exceptional 
year. The usual rule is to settle the trips as soon as possible after they 
arrive. 

Q. When they do settle, how do they arrive at the price; do the 
merchants agree on a price ?—A. Nothing of the kind. 

Q. It is so with regard to codfish; it has been so testified here—that 
the merchants agree on a Certain price they will allow their fishermen 
for green fish ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is the rule with regard to codfish 7?—A. I cannot say it is the 
rule. They may do it; I don’t know. I notice in Mr. Steele’s book va- 
riations in price. 

Q. I know they pay different prices in different years. Suppose 89 
vessels arrived to-day in Gloucester and packed out and paid the men, 
and the vessels were owned by eight or nine different persons, would 
the men be paid different prices ?—A. They would be; that, is if the 89 
trips sold for different prices. If all arrived on one day, they would be 
all settled with at the price of mackerel that day. 

Q. Suppose the mackerel were not sold that day ?—A. He settles at 
the market-price. 

Q. At a sum they agree upon ?—A. Yes. There is always a market- 
price for mackerel, well understood. 

Q. There is a market-price well understood at which the merchant 
pays the crews?—A. You misunderstand it. Let me explain it. In 
Gloucester there is great competition for trips of mackerel, and four or © 
five buyers come down as soon as a trip is in, after the trip ‘of mackerel, 
They will bid for the trip, and the one that bids highest takes it at that 
price. That is the usual way of selling mackerel at Gloucester. If the 
fitter and owner wants the mackerel himself to send to his customers, be 
says he will take them himself at the highest bid. 

Q. Is it offered at auction ?—A. It is offered among the buyers. 
Sometimes there is great competition among them. 

Q. Take such a firm as George Steele. When one of their vessels 
comes in, would they sell the fish to the buyers ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Does he not pack himself ?—A. Yes, he always packs. 

Q. He would not sell the fish until they Were packed ?—A. No. Some- 
times he sells them as soon as they arrive. He says, “I will sell this 
trip for so much after they are packed out.” 

Q. What is his practice; is it to sell to the buyers, or to pack it, par- 
chase it, and sell it himself ?—A. To sell it to the buyers. 

Q. There is a class of men known specially as buyers?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2635 


Q. Is not Mr. Steele what you call a fish-merchant ?—A. He is not a 
fish-buyer. 

Q. Does he sell his own fish that his vessels have caught ?—A. He 
does. 

Q. Upon the question of insurance, you explained that the insurers 
would not be liable below a certain percentage. I did not understand 
whether you knew what the percentage was.—A. I do not. I believe it 
to be 12 per cent. 

Q. I want to know positively. Do you wish that to go in your evi- 
dence as your statement that it is 12 per cent.?—A. Not that it is, but 
that I believe it to be so from hearsay. 

; Q. Does it differ from ordinary policies ?—A. Yes, our risks are dif- 
erent. 

Q. Do you know that your policies differ from ordinary policies about 
the percentage—about the percentage below which the insurer will not 
be liable ?—A. I do not know that they differ. 

Q. I understand that you don’t wish to make a positive statement on 
that point ?—A. I don’t wish to make a positive statement on anything 
I don’t understand. 

Q. Do you know the percentage below which ordinary companies don’t 
pay—is it 5 per cent. ?—A. I don’t know. 

@. In answer to Mr. Dana, you made what struck me as a curious 
statement—that to raise money on mortgage on a vessel you had to pay 
a very high rate of interest ?—A. A higher rate than on real estate. 

Q. What interest would you have to pay 7—A. Iknowa mortgage on 
a vessel would bring 8 per ‘cent. 

Q. That applies to all vessels, does it not 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Not specially to fishing-vessels ?—A. Iam talking about fishing- 
vessels. 

Q. With regard to other vessels, eneaped in general trade, what 
would be the rate of interest at which you could raise money on them ?— 


, A. I don’t know. 


Q. For you know anything it may be the same as on fishing-vessels. 
Do you know or not that it is higher on general trading-vessels than on 
fis hing-vessels ?—A. No. 
~ Q. In point of fact you don’t know anything about it ?—A. No. 

@. You don’t know from practical knowledge that it is 8 per cent. on 
fishing-vessels ?—A. No. 

Q. Your information on that is not such as will enable you to give 
evidence under oath ?—A. It is not. positive. 

Q. You spoke in regard to the depreciation of those fishing-vessels, 
and I understood your evidence to relate to all shipping 7?—A. To fishing- 
vessels generally. 

Q. The same remarks you made with regard to the depreciation of 


. fishing-vessels are applicable to all shipping?—A. I don’t think so. 


Q. Why not?—A. Because the wear and tear on fishing-vessels is 
more than on any other class of vessels. 

Q. I will limit the question to a vessel employed in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence during the months when the fishery is prosecuted there—J une, 
July, August, September, ayd October. Will the wear and tear of a 
fishing-vessel in the gulf during those months be more than the wear 
and tear of a trading-vessel?—A. I should say it was. 

- Q. Give me your reason.—A. The Gulf of St. Lawrence in the fall is 
a very rough place. 

_Q. You will remember that the fishing months I gave you were from 


: 


> 


2636 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


June to November, not including November?—A. The greatest loss of 
fishing vessels in the gulf was in August, 

Q. The depreciation on a vessel engaged in fishing in the gulf during 
those months is as great or greater than that of a vessel engaged in 
ordinary trade?—A. I think so. 

Q. Can you give me your reason?—A. The reason is that the vessel 
is engaged in the fishing business and is on a dangerous route. 

Q. You think the gulf is dangerous?—A. I do. 

Q. What has the danger of the gulf to do with the wear and tear of 
vessels 7—A. The wear and tear of a vessel comprises injuries she may 
receive in a gale or by being stranded. 

Q. The stranding would perhaps come in another valuation. The in- 
surers would most likely have to pay for that?—-A. Perhaps so and 
perhaps not. 

Q. Don’t you think they would?—A. According to what the loss 
would be. The insurance is 4 per cent. for four months. Why should 
the rate of insurance beso high if there was no danger of wear and tear 
to the vessel ? 

Q. I don’t know. Do they insure the vessels for the season or for 
trips ?—A. For the trips. That is what they charge—4 per cent. in the 
gulf, one per cent. per month. 

Q. What is the insurance of a yessel going to George’s Bank ?—A. I 
don’t know. 

Q. You were posted yourself in regard to it 7—A. I never posted my- 
self on that point. 

Q. Take vessels fishing off your own coast. With regard to wear and 
tear, don’t you think the wear and tear of vessels fishing off your own 
coast would be more than that of vessels fishing in the gulf during the 
months they fish there ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Not in the winter season ?—A. We fish on our shores all the year 
round. 

Q. Is not the wear and tear greater on your coast than in the gulf 
during the summer months when they fish there ?—A. I should say it 
was. 

Q. You spoke of the profits made out of fish, after they had been 
landed, by the fish merchants. Will you explain what the profits are?— 
A. On mackerel all the profits are in the packing. 

Q. And how much per barrel profit is there on that ?—A. From thirty 
cents to fifty cents. 

Q. A little higher than that, is it not?—A. No; I don’t think it is. 

Q. Have you ever packed yourself ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Much ?—A. I packed during three years. 

Q. So you are able to tell about packing.— A. Packing was then done 
at $1.15 per barrel. Now it is $1.75. . 

Q. Did it pay at $1.15 ?—A. Yes; barrels then were very much lower. 

Q. But it left a profit then ?—A. Yes. 

(. Have barrels risen in proportion to the rise in the charge for pack- 
ing 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. The same proportion ?—A. About the same proportion, I think. 

(. Then, do I understand that the increased cost of packing is solely 
due to the increased cost of barrels? Is there not a larger profit made 
on packing ?—A. I don’t know but what they may make a larger profit. 
Prices went up during the war, and they remained so till, I think, last 
year, when they dropped. 

Q. In what other ways have the merchants got profits upon pro- 
visions furnished to the families of fishermen ?—A. To the vessels. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~ (2637 


Q. Have you thought over since yesterday the question that was 
asked you, as to the profits they charge on supplies furnished .to the 


. families of the fishermen ?—A. I have not given it a thought since yes- 


terday. 

Q. Perhaps you did not give it much thought before yesterday 7?—A. 
T only gave it from my knowledge of the business. 

Q. What would you be prepared to say to-day is the profit they make 
on supplies furnished to the families of fishermen ?—A. About ten per 
cent. 

Q. Not more than that ?—A. It would not be over that. 

Q. a know that sometimes they lose the supplies ?—A. I know 
they do. 

Q. And don’t they make sufficient profit to cover all that 7—A. I don’t 
think they do. 

Q. You think they are not shrewd enough men to make the charge 
sufficient to insure them against loss ?—A. They might. 

Q. You don’t know exactly. Have you examined their books and 
prices so as to be enabled to testify accurately ont hat point ?—A. No; 
I have not. 

Q. You volunteer what you assume is correct 7—A. I give it from my 
recollection of my business in 1861 and 1862. 

Q. I understand they agree with wholesale dealers, to have the goods 
furnished at wholesale prices, and the fishermen are charged the retail 
prices?—A. Yes. 

Q. The difference between the wholesale price and retail price you 
don’t know ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. The difference is the profit which the merchant makes ?—A. Yes, 
and takes the risk. 

Q. You were town clerk of Gloucester for some time, and are ac- 
quainted, of course, with the valuations, more or less, of the different 
merchants 7—A. Yes. | 

Q. You spoke of two or three names as being leading men ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What are those men assessed at?—A. I could not tell; I don’t 
recollect. As town clerk I would not know. 

Q. You seem to have ‘filled numerous offices, and, no doubt, filled 
=~ efficiently 7—A. The assessors assess for taxes and keep their own 

oks. 

, Q. From the knowledge you have gained in looking over the assess- 
ors’ book, cannot you state what a man like Mr. Leighton is taxed for ?— 


A. I guess he is taxed at—— 


Q. Take Mr. Leighton’s firm.—A. I suppose it is assessed at $30,000. 
Q. What is that on?—A. That is on the valuation of his real estate 


and vessels. 


Q. How does that compare with its value?—A. In Gloucester they 


tax at a little over three-fourths of the value. 


Q. Of its cash value or ordinary market value ?7—A. Of the ordinary 


‘market value, as it is considered. If you force such a property as Mr. 


Leighton’s to a sale, it would not bring anything like its value. 
Q. What other leading men did you mention?—A. Dennis & Ayer. 
Q. About what would be their valuation ?—A. I don’t know. 
Q. Take Mr. Steele; what would his firm be taxed at?—A. Mr. Steele 
is probably taxed at $20,000. 
-Q. Would you put the four leading men in Gloucester down as worth 
from $20,000 to $30,000 each ?—A. I don’t think anybody in the fishing 
business in Gloucester is worth over $30,000. 
Q. What are they assessed at ?—A. I don’t know. I have not seen 


ee 


> 


2638 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the assessors’ books for a good many years; I cannot tell. I have 
formed my judgment from what I think they are worth. 

Q. How many vessels is Mr. Steele running ?—A. On an average, 
nine vessels. 

Q. They would range from what price?—A. They would average 
$5,000 each. 

Q. What is his real estate worth ?—A. About $10,000. 

Q. What are the premises where he lives worth, another $10,000 ?— 
A. I should think his house is worth $5,000; perhaps that is a little 
high. 

Q. Those amounts would reach $60,000; you told me he is put down 
as being assessed at $20,000 ?—A. That may be. 

Q. Why have you stated that you believed him to be assessed at about 
$20,000 ?—A. I have stated his valuation, perhaps, high. 

Q. Do you think there could be that difference between you and the 
assessors ?—A. There might be.- 

Q. Do you really think you could be, or the assessors could be, so far 
in error ?—A. I should think George Steele is worth about $35,000. 

Q. You mean after paying all his debts ?—A. I don’t know what his 
debts are. 

@. You mean after paying-his debts?—A. I mean the face value of 
his property is $35,000. I don’t know what his debts may be. 

Q. How do you reconcile the statements ?—A. I probably set a high 
value on his vessel property and other property. 

Q. You have already put in the vessels at a valuation of $5,000 each 
under the statement you made. under oath yesterday.—A. I know he 
had some very expensive vessels. 

Q. When you were making a statement of Mr. Steele’s business, show- 
ing how much he had lost or gained, you put down the vessels as worth 
$5,000 each ?—A. Idid so. That is what I took as an average, because 
some cost $8,000 and some less. 

Q. And in order to show what he gained or lost, you charged inter- 
est at 5 per cent. on that amount ?—A,. Yes. 

Q. Now, you may be all astray about the valuation?—A. No; I don’t 
say I am all astray. You asked me for the assessor’s valuation, and 
I could not give it, and I answered from my judgment. 

Q. How do you reconcile the statements ?—A. I can reconcile it in 
this way: If Mr. Steele’s property was sold to-day it would not bring 
more than $35,000; that is the face value of it. 

Q. That is, if forced into the market to- day ?—A. Yes; it would not 
bring more than $35,000. 

Q. Don’t you know that if a large quantity of any kind of property, 
not fishing property alone, is forced into the market the price is sure to 
fall?—A. You want anything of that kind set at a cash value, don’t you? 

(). Suppose you force a lot of stock on the market, more chan the pab- 
lic want, will it not necessarily run the price down ?—A. It would run 
low. 

Q. I am not talking about forced sales, but of the assessed value, as 
sworn to by the assessors, and as you as a practical man would value it. 
How do you reconcile the discrepancy between your statement of yester- 
day, when you placed each vessel at $5,000, and that statement that you 
do not believe the face value of Mr. Steele’s property, irrespective of what 
he owns, is worth more than $20,000 or $30,000 ?—A. I took the aver- 
age of vessels for 19 years. Idid not take them at what they are worth 
to-day. 


Q. I think you did.. I think you allowed a large sum for depreciation. — 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~ 2639 


When you were making up the statement to show the fishing business, 
you took insurance 107 vessels, $535,000, that is $5,000 each vessel ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. You charge insurance on those vessels at that rate, $21,000 ?—A. 
That is what he probably paid. 

Q. You then charged against the earnings of the vessels the interest 
on that capital sum, $535,000 at 7 per cent ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You then charged taxes on $160,000 ?—A. One hundred and sixty 
thousand dollars for seventeen years. : 

Q. And then you charged depreciation on the vessels, $29,000 ?—A. 
Yes. , 

Q. So if you charge depreciation and interest you keep up the capital 
stock to where it originally was ?—A. The depreciation is wear and tear 
to a large extent, and what are expenses of the vessel—sails and rigging, 
painting and repairing. 

Q. I recall your attention to the fact that I asked you what was the 
depreciation of a vessel in one year, and you gave $1,200 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I ask you what would be the depreciation yearly for the next five 
years?—A. Probably not more than $800. 

Q. You gave your estimate yesterday of Mr. Steele’s wor:h and the 
value of his vessels—are you inclined to-day to withdraw it ?—A. No, 
I hold to it. . 

Q. If you take off one-half of the principal the interest would be 
reduced oue-half?—A. The value of the vessels would be $45,000—9 
vessels averaging $5,000 each; and if the wharf was sold I think that 
it would bring $8,000, a fair valuation in my opinion. . 

Q. Did you not just now state that this wharf was worth $10,000 ?— 
A. I know I did; but his wharf is, together with another part, divided 
in the middle, and this would not make it so valuable as other wharf 
_ property. 
 @Q. You change this valuation, then, from $10,000 to $8,000 ?—A. I 
_ should think that $8,000 would be a fair valuation, and then I should 
- get down the house at $4,000. 

Q. You are coming down on that valuation very much ?—A. I said 
$5,000, but if it was put up at auction it would not bring that much. 
QQ. Does he own any other property besides the 9 vessels, the wharf, 
_ and the house ?—A. That is all the property it shows on the face. 

, Q. Does he own stock of any kind?—A. I do not know. 
_ Q. Has he no capital invested?—A. I do not know, but I presume 
_ that he owns ten shares in the Gloucester Bank. He is one of the 
_ directors, and he must have ten shares to qualify himself for being a 
. director. 
_  Q. Task you frankly what do you believe; bas he or has he not money 
| invested in other public works in Gloucester ?—D. I do not think so, 

LT hardly think that-he has. ° 

~ Q. Does he own goods or anything else?—A. He has goods in his 
| Store, but our outfitters do not keep a large stock of goods in stock. 

_ Q. What valuation would you put on this stock ?—A. I should think 
| that $1,500 would cover the value of the stock which he keeps on hand. 
Q. Will you include the shares in your estimate ?—A. I will do so. 

Q. What would you put it at on the whole ?—A. $45,000: 
_ Q. How do you make that out?—A. Five times nine make $45,000, 
I cake it $60,000, and three-quarters of it makes $45,000 as the cash 
value. 
Q. Then this account which you have made up is not put down at the 
eash or real value, but at a fancy value?—A. It is put down at the 


2640 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


average value of his vessels, taken for the time that they have been 
running. 

Q. What right had you to charge interest and insurance on this prop- 
erty at an amount largely disproportionate to the real value? Don’t 
you see that you reduce the profits immensely by that mode of proceed- 
ing ?—A. That is the face value of the property; if he pays interest on 
more than he ought to, that is his loss. 

Q. But you don’t pretend to say that he is paying the interest you 
made up in this sum; this is your estimate ?—A. Well, it is an estimate 
based on the original cost of the vessels, and the average cost. 

Q. I will ask you frankly if you knew what his vessels were worth, 
and what you ought to put down there? Is it fair to make up the sum 
and charge interest on $535,000 ?—A. I think so, because I have charged 
nothing for losses. 

Q. I beg your pardon; this does not allow the possibility of risk. 
You have insured the capital invested, charged interest at the rate of 7 
per cent. on that capital, allowed 143 per cent. for depreciation of ves- 
sels, and charged insurance upon the charter and outfits, and it isa 
dead certainty oa, That is true; insurance is charged on the charter. 

@. There is a dead certainty and no possibility of risk?—A. That is 
true, as the statement goes; yes. 

Q. Do you think that is fair, when he is running no risk, to ask him 
. to pay insurance on the value of the property far beyond what it is 

worth? In that way you reduee the profits down to nothing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Suppose you readjust that sum, and make up the sum on the real 
value of these things, and charge interest on the reai value of the ves- - 
sels, and insurance and taxes on real value ?—A. I should then have to 
charge more for depreciation. 

Q. Are you aware what percentage you charged for depreciation ?—A. 
I did not charge so much as it would be. 

Q. Are you aware what percentage you charged in this account ?—A. 
No; I did not reckon any percentage. 

Q. It seems to me to look like 144 per cent., at least ?—A. For depre- 
ciation? Well. 

Q. Do you think that 144 per cent. is a large sum, or not, to allow for 
depreciation ?—A. I do not think that it is a Jarge sum. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because it is very expensive running a vessel. 

Q. But running a vessel has nothing to do with depreciation ?--A. 
Why not. 

Q. Explain how itis. I cannot conceive of the connection ?—A. The 
wear and tear of the vessel is an expense, and it costs something to keep. 
her in repair and running order. 

Q. That is for repairs ?—A. Well, that is part of the depreciation ac- 
count. Can you find repairs there anywhere? 

Q. Part of it is depreciation account. It embraces both the actual 
repairs and the actual depreciation which arises from the vessel getting 
older ?—A. That is it. 

Q. You stated that the $800 is the amount of depreciation after the 
first year for the following five years ; do you still adhere to that ?—A- 
Yes; that would be about right, I should think. If anything it would 
be more, because Procter’s vessel shows about $1,200 or $1,400 expense 
in this regard. 

Q. That is in the statement which you have put in to-day ?—A. Yes.. 

Q. I see in it that $79 is charged for tinware and $48 for anchor lost, 
but is that an ordinary expense? It is an extraordinary loss? It does | 
not often happen ?—A. I have known vessels lose two anchors a year | 


AWARD CF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. : 2641 


Q. I dare say, but is it ordinary wear and tear?—A. Why not? It is 
part of the depreciation. 

Q. Is it an ordinary loss? Is it fair to charge the loss of an anchor 
which occurs during one year, as a general charge against a vessel for 
the year’s depreciation ?—A. No. 

q. You have done it here—A. How? 

q. In this very statement, in which you make an expenditure of 
$1,823.—A. I did not call it 81, 800, but about $1,200 or $1,400 for that 
vessel. 

Q. I find it marked down here as $1,823 7—A. Yes. 

-Q. And you think it would be about BL, 4007—A. You misunderstand 

“me about this; insurance is set down at $539, and then there is another 

m. 

Q. Commission for skipper ?— A. How large is that ? 

Q. $465.—A. And then there is the cost of tinware. 

Q. But that is too large an amount for an ordinary charge. You do 
not supply $79 worth of tinware oe year or the tenth of it?—A. O, 

es. 
Q. Every year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How much would you take off from this item ?7?—A. An owner 
-wou'd consider himself fortunate if an offer was made him to supply his 
vessel with tinware for $10 a year. 

Q. How much will you take off from the $79 7—A. $60. 

Q. And how much from the lost-anchor item ?—A. Not a cent. 

Q. You charge that every year as a part of the expenses ?—A. Yes ; . 
I guess that Steele’s expenses average an anchor every year. 

Q. Then there are railway fees?—A. Yes; but that I don’t take off. 

Q. You consider that a yearby expense 1A. Yes. 


By Mr. Foster: 

Q. Explain what this is for.—A. It is for the marine railway for re- 

pairs. 
By Mr. Davies: 

Q. You put down $63 for lumber for ice-house; is that required every 
| year?—A. Yes; more or less. 

Q. Do you build new ice-houses every year?—A. No, not new; but 
| some expenditure is required in this relation yearly. 

Q. What de you think would be a fair allowance for that ?—A. About 
one-half; I wall take $35 off from that item. 

Q. Whiatalo you do with ballast; does it remain in the vessel ?—A. 
‘No; it is taken out. 

Q. Is this ballast expense incurred every year?—A. No; not the 
a Whole of it. 

i . The sum of $80 is put down here for it?—A. Yes. I should say 
it about $40 a year would be a fair estimate for ballast. 
. Is a new swivel gun required every year ?—A. No. 

Q In fact, this is not a depreciation account; it does not show the 
items for depreciation and wear and tear?—A. Items are there for 
‘what a charterer of a vessel would have to furnish. 

By Mr. Foster: 
Q. But he would not supply a swivel. gun ?—A. Probably hot. 
a By Mr. Davies: 
_Q. The cost of ballast would never be charged for depreciation on 
the wear and tear of a vessel ?—A. I do not think so. It would be 
charged in the vessel’s expense account. 


| 
| 
i 166 F 


*.- 


; = 


a ’ 
2642 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q There is a great difference between that and this account; include 
these items in making up the sum total, and then tell us what percent- 
age you charge for depreciation and wear and tear ?7—A. Those charges 
form part of the depreciation account. 

Q. Do you really think that expenditure for ballast and a swivel-gun 
form part of the depreciation account? Do you honestly think so, 
major ?—A. As to the swivel-gun, you ean throw that out; it is an ex- 
ception to the general rule, because there are not many vessels which 
carry such guns; but all those expenses, added to the depreciation of 
the hull of the vessel, go to make up that depreciation account. | 

Q. In making up this account you have included these items as part | 
of it?—A. Yes. i 

Q. Even taking that method of making up and charging depreciation, | 
let me ask you to look at the return before you, showing as net earnings — 
for each schooner $251 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That would be for four and one-half months, half of the season ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. That would be $500 for the season: this is for half of the season, | 
and of course it would be the same for the other half of the season, if | 
they were then employed 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Multiply that by 107, the number of vessels mentioned in the | 
sum ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the result ?—A. Fifty-three thousand seven hundred and | 
fourteen dollars. ; 

Q. That is not a bad profit for a man to make ?—A. No. 

Q. What percentage would that give on the capital employed ?—A, | 
You don’t look above and see how the charterer stands. | 

Q. I will come to that directly. What‘percentage would $53,714 form | 
on the capital invested ; $535,000 7—A. It would be a little short of 10 | | 
per cent. ' 

Q. This is supposing that the owner of these 107 vessels would have | 
ran them without a shadow of risk, paying insurance upon them and | 
receiving interest at the rate of 17 per cent—7 per cent. on his capital 
being already included—paying taxes out of his profits, and having an | 
allowance of 143 per cent. depreciation. If that is so, will you kindly 
explain what you meant by telling Mr. Dana that a person who invested | 
his money in vessels and who did not bring skilled labor to bear upon | 
his operations could not make money ?—A. I did so for the very reason | 
that George Steele’s vessels are the most successful vessel¥in Gloucester. | 

Q. But this is only a supposed state of things. What did®you mean | 
by making that answer to Mr. Dana?—A. That is a well-known fact. 

(. Unfortunately the facts and your evidence do not agree, I am 
afraid. You have proved here pretty conclusively that a man who 
invests $535,000 on these vessels, employed in business, should make d74 
per cent. on his money after paying taxes, insurance, and keeping him- 
self perfectly safe. How do you reconcile that result with the state- 
ment you made to Mr. Dana, that a person who invests his money in 
this business would be sure to lose ?—A. You do not take into account | 
the loss, but you take it as being all profit. 

Q. The owner would suffer no loss, though the charterer would. It | 
Seems singular, does it not? You say this is where a man charters a 
vessel ?—A. Yes. J 

Q. In the first place, is George Steele a charterer of vessels 7—A. No. 

(). Then this statement, which assumes to relate to George Steele’s | 
business, as his name is mentioned as the charterer of the vessel, does 
not represent an existing state of facts, but is merely a theory whieh 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2643 


you put forth ?—A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account that it 

was an estimate. 

Q. That is the real fact, is it not?—A. Yes. The real fact is that I 
made a mere estimate in this regard. 

Q. George Steele does not charter vessels but owns them ?7—A. Yes. 

(). And this statement supposes him to be a charterer 7?—A. Yes. 

(). Though he is not one ?—A. Yes. 

(). Have you had the opportunity of examining George Steele’s books? 
—A. I[ have not. 

_ Q. How did you get these thirteen or fourteen trips ?—A. I saw the 
trip-books. I asked Mr. Steele for permission to show them to the 
~ Commission. 

‘Q. You then had the opportunity of examining his books ?—A. Yes, 

as to his trip-books, but not as to his ledger. 
Q. Did you ask for his ledger 7?—A. I did not. 
Q. I suppose if you had done so you would have obtained access to 
it ?—A. Probably I should. , 
@. Therefore you do not know what his books show as to actual profit 
and loss sustained by him during this period 7—A. [ do not. 
Q. And the actual state of facts may be at variance with the theory 
| you advance ?—A. I liardly think so. 
_ Q. Supposing that George Steele stands in the position you assume 
! in this statement, he would be bankrupt beyond all redemption 7—A. 
Yes. ; 

Q. You have proved him from theory to be bankrupt beyond all re- 
demption, when in fact he is a capitalist worth $45,000, which exhibits 
the difference between the practical statement and the theory ?—A. Yes; 
bat he had capital when he went into the business. 
| Q. Do you state that he brought it in with him ?—A. One-half of it 
‘was made in the sail-making business. 

/ “Q. Where was the other half made ?—A. In the fishing business dur- 
‘ing nineteen years, but that is only $1,000 a year, and he ought to make 
that. . , 
bs The actual loss on each vessel, for 107 vessels, you place at $167 ?— 
1A. Yes. 
| Q. Will you make that up and tell me for how mucli he ought to be 
}a detfaulter ?—A. His loss would be $17,869. 
| Q. And that is not’consistent with the facts; he is not a defaulter to 
ithat amount.—A. He has made it up in other parts of his business, but 
/as far as his vessels are concerned he has probably lost that sum. 
Q. You did not get access to his profit and loss ledger ?—A. No. 
Q. That would show exactly how it is, and this is an imaginary con- 
jelusion ?—A. Yes. I could not make it up without the actual bills of 
expenses for his vessels. 1 thought it was already understood that this 
‘was imaginary. ; 
| Q. Turning to the credit side of that account, the catch is 33,645 bar- 
Tels of mackerel?—A. Yes. | 
 Q. Will you tell me where you got the values?—A, From the trip- 
ke 


- Q. And that shows the values at which he settled with his men 7— A. 
\Y@S.4 ; 
| Q. Does it show the actual cash price which he received for these 
33,645 barrels 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Will you explain ?—A. Remember that this is for the fish and the 
yacking, which he receives when he sells the trip. - 
_ Q. Does that trip on its face show the actual moneys which he received 


2644 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


for the barrels of fish and to whom they were sold ?—A. It shows it 
with the packing out. 

Q. Will you turn up one of the trips and explain your meaning 7—A, 
Here is a trip made between August and October in the schooner 
Marathon. 

Q. It is a settlement between Mr. Steele and his crew ?—A. Yes; and 
the settlement between Mr. Steele and his vessel for that trip. 

Q. Does it show tou whom the mackerel were sold ?—A. No. 

@. Does it show the price per barrel for which they were sold ?—A. 
Yes; the packing out. The prices were $16, $12, and 86. 

Q. Are not these the prices at which he settled with his men ?—A, 
Certainly, and the prices at which he sold the fish. 

Q. Are you prepared to state that he never sold any of those fish for 
any higher price than that which he allowed his men ?—-A. I would not 
swear to that, because I do not know. 

Q. You do not know whether this was the case or not 7—A. I will 
swear in this respect with regard to my own vessels. 

Q. Are you prepared to state that Mr. Steele did not realize a larger 
price for the mackerel than that at which he settled with his crew ?—A. 
I do not actually know whether this was the case or not, but I do know 
that it is the custom in Gloucester for the merchants to settle with their 
crews at the exact prices for which they sell their fish. They do not 
settle with the crews for less than they get. 

Q. Did not you tell me, major, that it was the invariable practice for 
the merchants to settle with their crews when the vessels packed off, 
and that on a rise taking place in the market the former got the benefit 
of it?—A. O, that isa different thing. If the merchant buys the mack- 
erel of the crew and keeps the fish on hand for a rise, aud obtains it, 
that is his profit. 

Q. So that the profit which Steele may have made with these 33,645 


barrels of mackerel is a profit of which you absolutely know nothing ?— 


A. I know nothing about that. 

Q. So this statement does not pretend to be an exhibit of the actual 
profit which Steele may have made in this relation ?—A. No; but I 
know the custom of the city, and that is to sell the trip and to allow 
the men the price then received. 

Q. I merely want to show that the course of business is such that an 
experienced man can take advantage of a rise in the market and make 
a handsome profit of it?—A. That is true; and on the other hand he 
may lose. 

Q. At what rate per barrel do you credit these mackerel ?—A. The 


average price, as I stated in my explanation of the summary, is $12. 


per barrel for the 17 years during which he had vessels in the Gulf of 
Saint Lawrence. That is the price which he actually received for,his) 
mackerel. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 
Q. Does that cover all descriptions of mackerel ?—A: Yes, all deserip- 
tions that are packed from his vessel. 
Q. And the average was as high as $12 ?—A. Yes. 
Q. That was the actual result 7—A. Yes. 
Q. That is without packing, of course 7—A. Yes. ; 
By Mr. Foster : | 


Q. Do you mean to say that Mr. Steele’s mackerel during 17 years. 


averaged $12 a barrel, without packing-cbarges 7—A. Yes; Mr. Steele 
was very successful in his trips. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ' 2645 


Q. He took a large quantity of mackerel when currency prices were 
extremely high ?—A, When the price was low he sent his vessels cod- 
fishing, and when they were high he sent them to the gulf. 


~ Mr. Davies: 


Q. I find that the average actual receipt of Mr. Noble, who has been 
examined here for the three qualities of mackerel, were $15.34, so that 
really you are a little below what I thought the price would be. These 


- are currency values, I suppose ?—A. Yes. 


Q. You charge a these catches of 17 years for bait, &e. on 
$48, 052.80 ?7—A. Yes 

Q. Dividing that sum by 107 leaves $450 for each vessel?—A. Yes. 

®. I notice that in a statement concerning an actual trip you put the 
actual stock charges down at $415 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Showing a difference of thirty-five dollars between these items in 
these two statements 7?—A. That may be so. 

Q. Why did you not charge this item as $415, as was the case with 
the Pharsalfa, concerning which the sample statement was put in here ? 
—A. Of course I took the actual sum which was expended for stock 
charges. 

Q. Then this expenditure for the Pharsalia was a little below the ordi- 
nary run?—A. Yes; it is below the average. 

Q. And this item represents the actual expenditure taken from the 
books ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are the items for outfits and expenses put down also from actual 
expenditures ?—-A. No; they are estimates. 

Q. They are suppositious?—-A. They are estimates; yes. 

Q. You have already gone over the provisions to show that the item 
of 40 cents a day in this regard was correct; that had reference to the 
halibut fishery 7—A. All other fisheries average the same. 

Q. You think so?—A. Yes. 

Q. At what figure do you estimate the percentage of profit which is . 
made by the merchant who furnishes the supplies ?—A. I guess that it 


is in the neighborhood of 10 per cent. 


Q. Would you say that it is above ten per cent. ?—A. No; I think it 


' would average about ten pez cent. 


Q. Then on $85,386 spent for provisions a profit of about $8,530 would 
be made ?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. You charge $1 a barrel for salt 7A. Yes; that is the usual charge. 

Q. Are there-only two barrels in a hogshead of salt ?—.4. There are 
seven and a half bushels, or two barrels in it. 

Q. Surely there must be more ?—A. There are seven and a half bush- 


els in two barrels of salt. 


Q. Do not two and a half bushels make a barrel of salt?—A. No; 
there are three and a half bushels to the barrel. 

—Q. Would you not say that there are 5 barrels to the hogshead ?—A 
e I could not say that. 


| Q. What would you put it at ?—A. 2.27 fish-barrels. 


Q. What does it cost a hogshead {—A: $2. 
Q.-You charge $8,500 for salt, for as many barrels at $1 a barrel; 
one-half of it would be profit, and that would leave $4,250 as profit hex 


Yes. 


Q. You set down 107 bait-mills, one for each vessel, he the voyage ?— 
res. 
-Q. Do you mean to tell us that a vessel requires a new bait-mill on 


every voyage she makes ?—A. No. 


1 


2646 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Would you reduce this item one-half ?—A. I would reduce it one- 


quarter. 

Q. Would not one bait-mill last two trips ?7—A. Yes; it would last for 
4 months and 13 days. 

Q. Would one last for 2 different trips ?—A. These mills wear out as to 
the teeth in one season, and these have to be renewed for tbe next trip. 
The wood-work of the mill will last for 2 seasons. 

Q. Then you charge the value of a new bait-mill for each season’s 
trip, and that is too much ?—A. Yes; it should be 3. As to salt, 1 may 
here mention that 50 hogsheads of salt will fill 115 barrels; these hogs- 
heads contain about 3 barrels. 


By Mr. Dana: 
Q. How many bushels are reckoned to a hogshead of salt at the cus- 
tom-house ?—A. 8, 


By Mr. Davies: 

Q. Do you mean to say that salt costs, wlfolesale, $2 a gogshead _ 
A. I know that is the price charged for it. ° 

Q. What does it cost, say, by the 100 or 1,000 hogsheads? Does a 
merchant for such a quantity pay $2 a hogshead ?—A. No, probably not; 
he would probably obtain it for $1.75 or $1.874 per hogshead. 

Q. Showing a difference of about 25 cents per hogshead as profit 7—A. 
Yes. 

(. Would not the profit be more than 25 cents per hogshead on 8,500 
barrels of salt ?—-A. No. 

Q. By the way, what portion did you take off the bait-mill item ?7—A. 
I took off one-quarter. 

Q. Of what does the fishing-gear for these 107 vessels consist 7—A. 
Of hooks, and lines, and keelers. 

@. Are they not good for a second season ?—A. Hooks and lines are 


not, but the keelers may be so used. 


Q. Do you mean to say that they throw away their hooks and lines after 
having been used for one season ?—A. They are no good after one 
season. 


Q. What else goes to make up this fishing-gear in this item of | 


@4,815 2—A. The cost of the pewter is included, I guess. 

(@. What proportion would you take off that for one season 7?—A. Not 
a cent. 

Q. What proportion of the money thus invested could be atilized at 
the end of the season 7?—A, I do not think that a cent’s worth in value 
could be taken off this item. The keelers get pretty well used up at the 
end of the season. 

(). Surely the pewter would be good at the end of the year? 7—A. Ido 
not think so. 

Q. Do you say asa matter of fact that this fishing-gear, including the 
articles you have mentioned, is absolutely valueless at the end of one 
fishing trip ?—A. I do. 

@. Absolutely valueless, and treated so?—A. It is treated so. 

(). Nothing can be realized from it at all ?—A. Nothing at all. 

(). Where did you get the custom-house and port charges from ?—A. 
I obtained a good portion of them in the Dominion ; 8 cents per hogs- 
head of salt is charged in Gloucester for weighing-fees ; and then’ the 
vessel has to clear from Gloucester. 

Q. You think that this $140 isa fair charge?—A. Yes. Mr. Steele 
paid a license on his vessel during those years. 

(@. The next charge sets the charter ‘of these 107 vessels at $200 a- 


| 
I 
| 


| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 


| 


Se ee ee en) | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2647 


month; you have made up this statement, I presume, to show, or to at- 
tempt to show, the actual result in connection with fishing- vessels, bat 
is it the practice among the merchants who own vessels to “charter them 
out to others?—A. No. 

Q. Then this theory has no basis of fact to rest on ?—A. There are 
persons in Gloucester who sometimes charter vessels to go fishing. 

Q. But this is not the custom ?—A. No. 

Q. Then of course it would be pretty difficult to arrive at a sam which 
it would be fair compensation to pay for a vessel; the merchants prefer 
to run their vessels themselves ?—A. Yes; they generally do so. e 

Q. I suppose that there is not much insurance effected on charters in 
Gloucester ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever know any insurance to be effected on the charter of 
a vessel fishing in the gulf?——A. I do not know of anything of the sort, 
but itis a customary charge on the charterer. 

Q. Is all the skipper’s commission out of the net stock ($355,000) 


b eharged against the owner 7—A. Yes. 


H 


f 


| 
| 
| 


Q. The crew do not pay any part of it?--A. No. 

Q. Is it 4 per cent. or 3 per cent. tliat is thus paid ?--A. It is 4 per 
cent. 

Q. The master does pretty well, then ?—A. O, yes. 

Q. What do you think would be the profit on the packing out of 33,645 
barrels of mackerel ?—A. It would be 30 or 50 cents per barrel. 

Q. Taking 50 cents, that would make a profit of $16,825 ?—A. Fifty 


, cents is too high a figure. 


Q. What would be the result?—-A. When [said that, I referred to the 
prices which ruled during the war, when they got 50 cents. 

Q. Will you add up the different charges; I make them amount to 
$27,826; is that correct?—A. How many items have you? 

Q. There is $8,500?—A. That was reduced to $6,200. 

Q. How?—A. You reduced it, and you told me to set it at $6,200. 

Q. You calculated the rate at 10 per cent. of $8,500 odd, and I took 
your own figures, leaving $3,500; then there is $2,300 for profit on salt? 
—A. I did not say that; in round numbers the figures would be $1,750. 

Q. Then, from the bait-mill item you take off one-quarter, which 


- amounts to $402 ?—A,. Yes. 


Q. And the profit on packing is $16,825; add these items together.— 
A. That makes $17,081. 

*Q. I make it $27, 000. Your sum shows a loss of $44,715, and deduct- 
ing this from $27, 800, what have you left; do the sum, ¢ as in the otber 
ease, and tell me what profit is made on the whole transaction.—A. It 
is My 223. 

Q. Taking the whole transaction, what profit is made instead of the 


| awful loss you previously made out ?—A. It is $9,233. 


~Q. And that is after the mperanee companies have been paid; this is 

one season, 3; it is on 107 vessels. 

—Q. That is after the owner has received 7 per cent. for his money; 
after a depreciation of $29,000 has been considered ; after the taxes have 
been paid; and after insurance has been obtained upon the capital 
invested in these vessels’ and upon the charter and outfits; and there 
has been not one cent of the risk ineurred while 7 per cent. has been 
paid on the eapital employed besides, and still you have this profit ?— 
, A. There is $75 for each vessel. 

Q. I wanted to show this sum could be worked out differently with 
your own figures; this $9,000 profit is more consistent with the facts; 
I think your figures are a little astray.—A. I am not satisfied about it. 


> 


2648 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I suppose not.—A. From my general knowledge of the business — 
of Gloucester I am not satisfied with that result. 

Q. I find from your statements that after the Washington Treaty was 

~ entered into, Mr. Steele withdrew his vessels from your shore fishery 
and concentrated all his efforts on the bay;-am I correct in making 
that statement 7—A. In 1870-and 1871 he did not send any vessels to 
the bay. 

Q. But in 1872 he commenced sending them to the bay 7—A. Yes. 

. QQ. And he has sent them there ever since ?—A. Yes. 
* Q. And he has since sent none to fish on your shore ?—A. No. 

(. Since 1872 he has sent none to fish on your shore, but has sent all 
his vessels to the bay 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What was the average price of the mackerel caught in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence realized by Mr. Steele between 1858 and 1865? In the 
first place, what was the average catch per vessel made by his vessels in 
the gulf between 1858 and 1865 ?—A. It was 338 packed barrels for these 
years inclusive, and the mackerel sold for $11.10 per barrel. 

Q. What was it between 1865 and 1872?—A. Two hundred and 
eighty barrels, which sold for $14.40, exclusive of the packing. 

Q. And what was it between 1872 and 1876?—A. Two hundred and 
twenty-three barrels, which sold for $10.01. 

Q. That makes an average catch per vessel of 304 packed barrels, 
which realized $12 a barrel 7—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the average catch of his shore vessels between 1858 and 
1865 ?—A. .It was 191 barrels. 

Q. As against 338 barrels for the vessels which he sent to the bay. | 
What is the average price which he realized for these mackerel 7—A., | 
Five dollars and seventy cents per barrel. His vessels fished on our 
shore for four years between those dates. 

Q. As against $11 received for his bay mackerel. Now take the whole | 
period during which his vessels fished on the American shore.—A. The | 
average time they were there employed was two months and twenty 
days each; their average catch was 239 barrels, and the average price 
of their mackerel $7.10 a barrel. 

Q. As against $12 per barrel which he received for his bay mackerel. | 
What was the share per month of the vessels which were engaged in | 
fishing in the bay?—A. Three hundred and seventy-two dollars and | 

 Sixty-Six cents. 

Q. What was such share for the vessels which fished on the American | 
shore ?—A. Three hundred and ten dollars and sixty cents. 

Q. What was the share for each man of the crews which fished in | 
the bay ?—A. Twenty-four dollars and eighty-four cents. 

Q. And what was such share of the crews which fished on the Ameri- 
can shore?—A. Twenty dollars and seventy cents; but that is nota 
fair average, because Steele’s vessels were not engaged in fishing as @ 
rule on the American shore. 

Q. Am I not taking the average for corresponding years in the bay 
and on your shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Does it not appear that Mr. Steele must have been losing money 
on your shore, and that after 1872 he transferred his fishing operations 
wholly to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where he has entirely kept his ves- 
sels since; is that a fact or not ?—A. It is, because Mr, Steele’s skippers 
are more acquainted with gulf fishing than with fishing on our shore. * 
This has always been the case with them; they were always more ac- 
customed to the bay branch of the fishery. thau to fishing on our shore. | 

Q. They knew where to fish there?—A. Yes. | 

| 


‘ 
at ae 2 a — 2 3 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2649 


MonpAy, October 15, 1877. 
The Conference met. 
The cross-examination of Major Low was resumed. 


By Mr. Davies: 

Question. I notice that in your examination on Friday, you said that 
the comparison with reference to Steele’s vessels might not be a fair 
one with respect to the bay and shore fisheries, because they had been 
engaged in fishing a longer time in the Bay of St. Lawrence than on 
the American shore, and I want you to take the statement printed of 
page 3594 and make the comparisons for corresponding periods which | 
will indicate. In the first place, if you take the total number of vessels 
which were fishing in the Bay of St. Lawrence, how many would there 
be ?—A. 107. 

Q. Can you tell me, from that statement, what is the average time 
each vessel was occupied in fishing? Divide the total number of vessels 
into the time so occupied, and give the result.—A. It is 4 months and 
13 days. : 

Q. Have you it already made up?—A. Yes; it is contained in my 
explanation of the summary I tiled. 

Q. How did you make it up ?—A. I divided the time by the number 
of vessels. 

Q. Try it again, and-state the result.—A. It is 4,43, months, or 4 
months. and 13 days. © 
aN Did you embrace the 75 days employed in the fitting out ?—A. 
es. 

Q. Take it without this period and see what you make it, giving the 
actual time consumed from the time when they left Gloucester until 
they returned; I make it 3,5, months.—A. Yes; that is it. 

Q. Now, take the number of vessels engaged in the American coast 
fishery and treat them in the same way, omitting the time employed in 
fitting out ?—A. It is 2,5; months; I call the total period 59 months. 

Q. All of these vessels were mackereling ?—A. One vessel was one 
day there. 

Q. Having the average time which each vessel was so employed, I 
want you to take the ca'ch which each vessel made, and the receipts 
obtained for those mackerel as you have them here; for instance, what 
was the total gulf catch 7—A. 33,645 barrels. 

: Q. mee did these 33,645 barrels of mackerel bring?—A. $12 a 
arrel. 
.Q. And how much would that be in bulk 7?—A. $403,832.86. 

Q. How much did each vessel make per month 7—A. $372,345. 

Q. No; I want to see how much was made per month.—A. It is all 
ngieta up here in the explanation of the summary on page 360. 


~ *Q. You make it $372.66 for each vessel; then will you do the same 


‘sum for the period during the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. That is done, 


too, from 1858 to 1865 on page 360. 


Q. But that does not show what each vessel made per month. You | 


~ haxe given what the vessels made per month for the whole period of 


‘time, and [ want to see what it was during the Reciprocity Treaty. 
Take the gross catch, value it, and divide by the length of time they 
were in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.—A. From 1858 to 1865, 1 make up 
the number as 60 vessels, and the value of the gross catch, $225,243. 

Q. That leaves $3,754 for each vessel?—A. It is $401 13. 
.Q. You have misunderstood me. I want to find out for the period 


2650 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


from 1858 to 1865 what the earnings of each vessel per month were.— 
A. They were $16,694. 

Q. Per month for each vessel ?—A. For each vessel per month they 
were $401.13. 

Q. Add up the value of the catch for that period. —A. I did not add 
it up, but I added the vessel’s share up. 

Q. Iam not asking you about that. Iam taking the table and com- 
paring one statement with another. I am asking you concerning the 
result for each vessel, and I want to see what the vessels’ earnings per 
mouth were.—A. But that won’t give it. 

Q. Yes; you either have to pay one-half of what you catch or wages, 
I do not care which; the value of the gross catch is $225.238, and there 
were 60 vessels, thus leaving $3,754 for each oa for the season ; 
and as the average trip was 3,5, months, that would leave $1,000 per 
month by my sum. Would this be the case or uot ?—A. The value of 
the gross catch is $225,243.29. 

Q. And there are 60 vessels ?—A. Yes; that makes $3,754.55 for each 
vessel. 


Q. You divide that by the average number of months, 3,5,?7—A. I 


take the whole time that they were engaged fishing. 
What was the length of the average trip in the bay from 1858 to 
1865 ?—A. Eighty-three days was each Vessel’s av erage. 

Q. For what period of time ?— A. From 1858 to 1865; and this leaves 
£98.80 per month. 

Q. You are wrong; you say that you have $3,754 for each trip; now 
what is the length of time that each season occupied 7?—A. 3.8 months. 

Q. Divide $3,754 by 3.8 and you will find that this will leave as close 
as possible $1,000 a month ?—A. It leaves $998. 

Q. Now do exactly the same sum for the same time on the American 
shore. I only put you these questions because you answered previously 
that owing to the difference in the length of time, a fair comparison 
could not be made between the vessels fishing on the American shore 
and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Will you kindly read the catches and 
make them up ?—A, The explanatiou of the summary which I have made 
up shows that the American shore fisheries realized less per month than 
the bay fisheries. 

Q. I know, but I it to learn the amount exactly. The gulf fishery 
realized $1, 000, less $2, per month; now what do you make the gross 
catch for the shore fisheries ?—A. $12,713.20. ‘ 

Q. I make it $12,4347—A. You will find that I am right. 

Q. Then the number of the vessels is 12 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What will this give for each vessel ?—A. $1,059.43. 

Q. Take the average.length of time—the average trip tA, They 
were engaged in fishing for 19 months. 

@. Dividing the number of the vessels into the results, what will it 
leave you ?—A. $623. 

Q. So that the average catch per month of the vessels employed in 


: the American shore fishery from 1858 to 1865 amounted in value to $623, 


while the average catch per month of the vessels engaged in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence fishery realized $998 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the average value of the catch of the vessels engaged in the 
gulf fishing for the same period of time was $998?—A. Yes. 


Q. This refers entirely to the table you have put in with regard to ~ 


George Steele’s vessels 7—A. Yes. 
@. You put in another statement purporting to be a statement show- 


ae 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - “2651 


ing the difference between the American shore and the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence fisheries ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you think that this was a fair statement ?—A. A fair state- 
ment? 

Q. Yes.—A. Why not? 

Q. The counsel asked you if you had ever made up statistics relative 
to the shore and gulf fisheries, showing the difference between the 
American shore fishery and the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery, and your 
ansWer was: “ Yes; the statement is as follows.” Did you intend to 
file this statement as a fair statement, showing the relative difference 
between these two fisheries?—A. I explained what I meant right un- 
derneath, when I said : 

The average catch is based on the average catch of 84 vessels, from 17 firms, in 1369, 
and 28 vessels in the bay, and 62 vessels off American shore, from 20 firms in 1875. 
These firms have done better than the rest. 

‘Q. Was it your intention to show the relative catches made in these 
two fisheries ?—A. During these two periods; yes. 

Q. Did you intend that these periods should be taken as a fair repre- 
sentation of the catches usually made in these two fisheries 7—A. Those 
were the actual catches made for those years by Gloucester vessels. 

~Q. I only want to know whether you intended that the Commission 
should draw from this statement the inference that it represented fairly 
the relative values of these two fisheries 7—A. I so intended it for those 
years. | 

Q. But did you so intend it for any other years ?—A. No, I do not 
know anything about any other years than those in this relation. ‘ 

Q. Did you never make up the catches for any other years save those ? 
—A. No; those were the only years for which I ascertained the number 
of vessels which had been fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off 
the American shore. 

Q. How was it that you came to ascertain this for those years ?7—A. 
It was because in 1869 I was town clerk, and I then ascertained it for 
the information of the people of Gloucester; and in 1875 I obtained 
this information for Centennial purposes. 

Q. You do not pretend to say that it shows anything like a fair repre- 
sentation of the relative values of the two fisberies ?—A. No, save for 
those years. 1 show the number of barrels that was caught in that 
period in these two fisheries, 

- Q. Is this result not directly opposite to the result shown by an ex- 


amination of.the catches of Mr. Steele’s vessels 7—A. I do not consiler 


that the catches of Mr. Steele’s vessels show a, fair criterion in this re- 
spect. : 
Q. But what is the actual result—you show in this statement that 


your shore fishery is very much better than the Gdlf of St. Lawrence 


fishery for the two years 1869 and 1875 ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Now taking the whole number of years that Mr. Steele was en- 


gaged in the Gulf of St. Lawrence fisheries, is not the result directly 


_ Opposite to the result you have shown in this statement ?—A. I know 


that it is. 

Q. Then you did not intend that this statement should be taken by 
the Commission as a fair representation of the general value of these 
two fisheries ?—A. Yes, I did. 

-. Q. For those two years ?—A. Yes. ‘ 
 Q. But nothing more ?—A. Nothifig more. ; 
Q. And this is directly opposite to the general result shown by the 


. 


2652 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


catches of Mr. Steele’s vessels in the bay. for 17 years?—A. I do not 
think such is the general result. 

Q. You said just now that it was ?—A. Yes. 

Q. To which statement do you adhere ?—A. [ adhere to what-I have 
said: that the general average of Mr. Steele’s vessels in the bay is not 
a fair estimate, because he did not pay any attention to the American 
shore fisheries. 

Q. You said a moment ago that this was the case, and that it was not 
the case; and I want to know which you really mean.—A. I mean what 
I say. 

@. You stated in your examination on page 359, that Mr. Steele’s firm 
was among the firms which were most successful, whether on your shore 
or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence—that he was one of the most successful 
on your own shore and in the gulf—A. I beg your pardon. I never 
said that; orif I did say so, I did not mean to say that he was the most 
successful on our shore. 

(. The counsel put you this question : 

Q. To how many firms do you refer ?—A. These include the most successful firms: 
George Steele, &c. 

Q. Those are the firms that had been the most successful, whether on our shore or 
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; which are considered to be the most successful firms in 
Gloucester ?—A. George Steele, Leighton & Co., Dennis & Ayer, and Smith & Gott. 

Q. These are generally considered to be the most successful firms ?—A. Yes. 

A. I did mean to say that his firm was among the most success- 
ul firms on our shore. .I did not clearly understand the question at 
fthe time. 

Q. You did not mean to say that ?—A. I did mean to say that this 
included in the aggregate the most successful firms in Gloucester, and 
I included George Steele as one of those firms; and I do consider him 
to be one of the most successful firms in the fishing business. 
~ Q. You did not mean to say that his was one of the most successful 
firms regarding the fishery on your coast ?—A. No; but he was classed 
with the others. 

Q. And if you are reported here as having said so, you wish to ex- 
plain the matter in that way ?—A. Certainly. 

Q. I want to know whether, as an actual fact, the figures produced 
by you concerning the periods of time for which Mr. Steele was engaged 
in the fishery on the American coast, and in the fishery in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence, do not show a result entirely opposite to that made out 
in this statement relative to the years 1869 and 1876, which you have 
put in?—A. That may be so. 

Q. Is this the case or not? Is the result as to the relative values of 
the American shore fishery and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. fishery the 
same in the statement you have filed for the years 1869 and 1875 as it 
is when you compare the results of the whole 17 years during which 
Mr. Steele wag engaged in these two fisheries ?—A. The result is the 
same as regards this statement. 

Q. But does the result shown by the one statement exactly coincide 
with the results shown by the other statement as to the relative values 
of the two fisheries, or does such comparison show that the bay fishery 
is far more valuable than the American shore fisheries 7—A., You mean 
by Mr. Steele’s trips ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Taking Mr. Steele’s statement alone it would show that, 
if pou do not take into consideratien any other consideration connected 
with it. 

Q. Taking Steele’s statement as it appears here, does it not show that 


8 


® 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, ~ 2653 


the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery is far more valuable than the Ameri- 
ean shore fishery 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And the other statement is put in to show that the American shore 
fishery is more valuable than the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. But this latter statement only compares results for the two years, 
1869 and 1875 7?—A. Yes. 

q@. And the other statement covers a consecutive period of 17 years ?— 
A. This period is not consecutive. 

Q. Why not?—A. Because a good many gaps occurred between the 
years when his vessels were fishing. 

Q. From 1858 it extends to 1875, omitting two years, I think ?—A. 
Several more years are omitted. There were quite a number of years 
when Mr. Steele’s vessels were not fishing on the American shore, 
between 1858 and 1875. During a great many years they did not fish 
on the American shore at all. 

Q. Taking the exact length of time he was engaged in the bay fishery, 
did not this show that it was much more valuable to him per month 
than was the American shore fishery per month?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were asked whether some of these statements were not made 
up for the Centennial, and you stated that this was the case ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Some of these statements were not made up for the purposes ot 
this Tribunal at all. but for the Centennial 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And the motive for their preparation had no connection with this 
Tribunal ?—A. Yes—nothing whatever. 

Q. What did you make them up for?—A. To show that Gloucester, 
in the fishing business, was the Jargest fishing port in the world. 

Q. And what was your object in showing this?—A. It was to adver- 
tise the place to some extent. 

Q. What end were you seeking to gain by advertising this?—A. I 
wanted to make Gloucester more known, so that we might have a better 
market for our fish; that was the idea. 

Q. And in order to have a better market for 3 your fish, I suppose you 
wanted to let capitalists know what a large business it carried on?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. And you proved it to be the third largest fishing port in the 
world 7—A. I think that it so stands first. 

. Q. I suppose you wanted to let people know that you carried on there 
a large fishing business which was profitable in a certain sense; you 
did not wish them to understand that it was an unprofitable business? 1 
A. Of course not. We wanted to show that this was the business of 
Gloucester. I did not say, and I would not say, that the business of 
Gloucester is unprofitable. 

Q. You desired to show that the fishing business was the business of 
Gloucester ?7—A. Yes. , 

Q. And you re-afiirm that here ?—A. Yes; that it is the main busi- 
ness of Gloucester. 

Q. I suppose that this business has resulted in the building up of 
Gloucester ?—A. Yes; to a great extent, of course. 

Q. There are industrial pursuits pursued incidentally by the popula- 
tion, but these are not the main pursuits of Gloucester?—A. No. I 
think, though, that, if anything, those other pursuits have brought more 

' _avealth into Gloucester than the fishing business. 

Q. Do you think so?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. What makes you think that?—A. Well, the rich men that have 


2654 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


thus come there, and built and paid taxes, have helped out the valua- 
tion of Gloucester. 

Q. When did these rich men come there ?—A. Some of them have 
been there for 10 or 15 or 20 years. 

. Would you like it to go on record, as your opinion, that Gloucester 
owes her prosperity more to the mercantile business, and to other inci- 
dental business, than to the fishing business ?—A. I should not. I con- 
sider the fishing business of Gloucester as the main business of the 
place. 

(. And the one to which she chiefly owes her prosperity 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Looking up the files of the Cape Ann Advertiser, with reference 
to the Centennial, I notice a statement relative to your fisheries, and to 
the effect their prosecution has had on Gloucester, to which I would like 
to call your attention, to see whether you agree with it or not. Itis 
contained in this paper of date November 12, 1875, and is as follows: 


In 1841 the fishery business of Gloucester had reached about its lowest ebb. Only 
about 7,000 barrels of mackerel were packed that year, and the whole product of the 
fisheries of the port was only about $300,000. In 1845 the business began torevive, the 
Georges and Bay Chaleur fishery began to be developed, and from that time to this 
year, 1875, has been steadily increasing, until at the present time Gloucester’s tonnage 
is 10,000 tons more than Salem, Newburyport, Beverly, and Marblehead united. Nearly 
4V0 fishing-schooners are owned at and htted from the port of Gloucester, by 39 firms, 
and the annual sales of fish are said to be between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000, ail 
distributed from here by Gloucester houses. 


THE COMMERCIAL WHARVES. 


The wharves once covered with molasses and sugar hogsheads, are now covered with 
fish flakes, and the odors of the “sweets of the tropics” have given place to “ the an- 
cient and fish-like smells” of oil and dried cod; the few sailors of the commercial 
marine have been succeeded by five thousand fishermen drawn from all the maritime 
quarters of the globe; and the wharves that were the wonders of our boyhood days 
are actually swallowed up in the splendid and capacious piers of the present day, so 
much have they been lengthened and widened. 


THE SALT TRADE. 


For many years after the decline of the Surinam trade, hardly a large vessel was 
ever seen at Gloucester, and many persons thought that nevermore would a majestic 
ship be seen eutering this capacious and splendid seaport. But never in the palmiest 
days of Gloucester’s foreign trade, were such immense vessels seen as at the present 
day. Ships of 1,500 tons (as big as six William and Henry’s) sailed into Gloucester har- 
bor from Liverpool and Cadiz, and came in to the wharve without breaking bulk, and 
also laid afloat at low water. More than forty slips, barks, brigs, and schooners, ‘of 
trom 400 to 1,400 tons, laden with salt alone, have discharged at this port the present 
year, and also the same number last year. The old, venerable port never represented 
such a forest of masts as can now frequently be seen ; sometimes six ships and barks 
at a time, besides innumerable schconers. 


THE CITY OF GLOUCESTER OF 1875 AND THE TOWN OF 1825. 


What a contrast is presented as a ship enters the harbor now, with what was pre- 
sented in 1825. The little rusty, weather-beaten village, with two “ meeting-houses ” 
and a few dwellings and wharves gathered around them; two or three thousand peo-’ 
ple with $500,000*property, was all that Gloucester then was, as near as we can ascer-- 
tain. Now the central wards, without suburban districts, contain 14,000 people, with 
$9,000,000 valuation. 


4 . 


Was the valuation irrespective of the suburban districts that amount 5 
is this correct?—A. I could not say for certain. You have the valua- 
tions to Gloucester for a series of ygars. 

Q. Your valuation agrees with this; but the statement says that this 
valuation is irrespective of the suburban districts—you know as town 
clerk whether this is so or not?—A. I was not town clerk then. 


“AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2655 


Q. Do you know whether this is the case or not ?—A. I know that 
the whole valuation of the city does include the suburban districts. 
Q+ The article continues: 


Five banks with nearly $2,000,000 capital in them (including savings); and this in- 
crease has arisen, not from foreign commerce, but from the once despised and insignif- 
icant fisheries. : 

It will be seen by a review of the history of Gloucester, that .a foreign commerce did 
not bnild the town up in population or wealth; that from 1825 to 1850,its increase 
had been very small; but from 1850 to 1875, it has grown from 8,000 to 17,000 inhabit- 
ants, and its valuation from $2,000,000 to $9,000,000! It is the fisheries that have 
mainly caused this great change; it is the success of that branch of industry that has 
lined Gloucester harbor with wharves, warehouses, and packing-establishments, from 
the Fort to ‘“Oakes’s Cove.” It is the fisheries that have built up Rocky Neck and 
Eastern Point, and caused ward 3 (Gravel Hill and Prospect street) to show nearly all 
the gain in population from 1870 to 1875. 


Do you think that this picture is overdrawn as to the prosperity of 
Gloucester or as to the cause to which this prosperity is attributed ?— 
A. Well, I think that it is a little overdrawn myself. 

Q. You think that a little allowance ought to be made for the centen- 
nial year ?—A. Yes, I think so, in this respect. 

Q. Do you think that we should make the same allowance with regard 
to the papers which you have put in concerning the cost of fitting out 
and fishing schooners, &c., prepared for the centennial vear ?—A. No. 
I think that these are below rather than above the actual estimates ; in 
fact I know that this is the case. : 

Q. Will you kindiy tell me what your vessels cost when you were in 
the fishing business ?—A. The Cynisca cost $3,730; the C. C. Davies, 
$3,300; the Anna, $2,000; the Daniel McPhee, $3,500; the Ella F, 
Bartlett, $5,600 ; the R. H. Oakes, $4,200; and the I. C. Curtis, $6,500 ; 
that is the whole valuation, but I only owned shares in them. 

Q. That makes an average of $3,830 for each vessel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And that is the number of vessels in which you were interested ?— 


. A. Yes. 


You have given the valuations and what they cost?—A. Yes; what 
they cost. 
Q. This, I suppose, represents about their value ?—A. Yes, at that 


time. 


- Q. Do you not think that there is a very great difference between the 
yalue of the vessels actually engaged in the fishery and the value of the 
fancy vessels; the cost of which you sent to the Centennial ?—A. Fancy 
vessels? That was the actual cost of these vessels in 1875, 

Q. What is the name of a vessel that cost so much ?—A. The Victor ; 
she cost $8,800. 

Q. What was her size 7—A. 77 tons. 

Q. Was she an ordinary vessel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Does she represent the ordinary class of vessels engaged in the 
fisheries ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How is it that your seven vessels did not cost anything like so 
much ?—A. That was before the war, when prices were on a gold basis. 

Q. Is not the American paper dollar as good as gold now ?—A. .Yes; 
very nearly. 

Q. That reason cannot effect it; that has nothing to do with it. I 
want to know if your vessels were of an inferior class or were they a 
fair sample of the usual run of fishing-vessels 7—A. They were a fair 
Sample of the vessels which were then engaged in the fisheries. 

(). We are to understand that this is about the average value of the 


_ vessels engaged in the fisheries ?7—A. Yes; at that time. 


2656 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. That was when a dollar currency was worth a dollar in gold, and 

the dollar currency is almost worth that now; do you mean to say that 
the cost of building vessels now is dearer than it was then ?—A. I do; 
and it is a great deal dearer. 
* Q. Why ?—A. Ido not know why; but it is due, I think, to the in- 
creased value of labor and of material. I know that these do cost more 
now than they did then. They now cost double as much as they did 
then. 

Q. You stated that you were interested in 8 vessels and you have only 
named 7?—A. I only fitted out the schooner Electric Flash, but I have 
included her catch. 

Q. You were not directly interested in her ?—A. No; save only as an 
outfitter. She was avery successful vessel, and I merely mentioned her 
to show her catch in the gulf. 

Q. Have you thought over the question of bait, since Friday, to find 
out whether or not the bait that is charged against a vessel, when she 
goes on a fishing-voyage, is generally all used ?—A. Yes; this is the 
case when they get a full trip. 

Q. We know, as a matter of fact, that vessels do not generally get 
full trips; now, suppose that a vessel gets only half a trip, and returns> 
to Gloucester, is not the bait left from that which she took with her 
when she went on her voyage still good bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Therefore, that voyage could only be charged with the actual 
quantity of bait used ?—A. That is all she is charged with. 

Q. What do you mean by that?—A. What I say; that if any bait is 
returned it is credited in the gross stock of her catch. 

Q. I notice that, in the statement concerning the Oliver Eldridge, you 
charged that vessel with 55 barrels of slivers, pogies, at $6.50, from the 
Eclipse; was this not previously charged to the Eclipse 7—A. No. 

Q. How do you know that ?—A. These pogies came from the Eclipse. 

Q. What is she ?—A. A bait seiner. 

@. You also charge $7.50 for clams from last year ?—A. That was 
credited back to a vessel last year. 

Q. Was this credited in the trip-book ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Will you get me the trip-book, and show me the entry ?—A. I do 
not know what vessel it was; but if I knew this I could show the entry. 

@. You have the schooner Oliver Eldridge mentioned here, and it 
must appear there ?—A. It is not credited from her trip last year, of 
course. 

Q. Surely you can tell by looking at the trip-book ?---A. I can see on 
the trip-book where credit is given under the catch of mackerel for so 
many barrels of bait returned; that is the way it is done before the 
stock charges are taken out. The mackerel are credited first, then the 
pogies returned ; the bait returned is credited under the mackerel, and 
added ip, and then comes the stock charges, which are deducted from 
both bait and mackerel. 

Q. That may be so?-—-A. It is so. 

Q. The trip-book does not refer to any particular lot in this regard ?— 
A. No; the returned bait is simply taken out of the vessels and stored 
away. - 

Q. Show me the trip of the vessel where this is credited ; as almost 
every vessel has a short fare, such an entry must appear in nearly every 
account ?—A. This is not always so. 

Q. Why not, if any bait is left ?--A. It is so if any is left. 

(). Every vessel not having a full fare must have something to credit 
stock charges; and this will make a tremendous difference in 107 ves- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2657 


sels ?—A. I see that Mr. Steele, in making up his voyages, has charged 
for the bait used, but has not taken in all the bait they carried. 

Q. How do you know that !—A. Don’t you see 27 barrels. 

Q. Just tell me what there is to justify you in supposing that 7—A., 
Well, there was 27 barrels used in catching 219 barrels of mackerel 
according tothat. They will be likely to carry more bait than 27 barrels. 

Q. But you find, I understand, that there is no credit to the stock 
charges in the books ?—A. I don’t see any. 

Q. You can find them ?—A. No. 

Q. Now you assume he has only charged the bait actually used. But 
I want to know this. There is nothing on the face of the book ?—A. 
No; there does not appear to be on that book, but I think I have seen 
it somewhere on some books, 

Q. What schooner was that 7—A. The George S. Loring. 

Q. Now, you see if you go by that rale——A. You cannot go by any 
rule on bait. 

Q. Well, here is the schooner. She took 226 barrels; “but she is 
charged with 55 barrels of bait ?—A. L know it. 

Q. Would you assume from this that he had only charged what was 
actually used 7?—A. I should presume so. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because, in regard to using bait some vessels and some 
skippers use very much more bait than others. Some of the most suc- 
cessful skippers are most liberal] with bait. 

Q. In other words, you just assume that what was there was actually 
used ?—A. Because I see no more, and from my judgment of the way 
the mackerel are caught. Here is a credit—schooner Charles Carroll ; 
she was in Bay St. Lawrence in 1863; debtor 40 barrels slivers, 12 bar- 
rels clams, less 4 barrels slivers and 1 barrel of clams sold to schooner 
Madame Roland. 

Q. Madame Roland is another of his vessels that is in the commence- 
ment of the account. Well, we will take a vessel that is going to haul 
up.—A. There is the schooner Austerlitz. She had 8 barrels of clams, 
“less 1 barrel clams left.” There is another where she ran short of 
bait and got it from another vessel. Here is the schooner Grenada. 

Q. What year ?—A. 1863. Eighteen barrels slivers, 6 barrels clams, 
2 barrels from schooner Altamaha in bay, less 7 barrels bait left. 

Q. Well, in that other book we examined underneath your hand, I 
would like to know if you could find any in that?—A. No; I don’t see 
any. 

Q. SoI presume thereis none left ; either none left or none credited ?— 
A. If there was any left it. was taken out of the bait before the bait was 
entered on the trip-book, because I know the bait is always accounted 
for at the end of the voyage. 

Q. Was Mr. Steele accustomed to take out licenses ?—A. He was. 

Q. How are they charged? In the trip-books 7—A. I think they are. 
I think I saw them on the trip-books. 

Q. You are sure of that ?—A. I am pretty certain. 

Q. That they are charged on the trip-books against the voyage, part 
of stock charges ?—A. Yes. 

Q..That would be then that the owner would pay half and the crew 
half ?—A. What year were they ? 

Q. 1866 and 1867, If they were charged in that way, the owner 
would pay half and the crew half?—A. If they are charged in that 
way—yes. 

Q. Can you give me the name of some one vessel that took a license ?— 

_ 167F 


2658 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


A. [Refers to the book.] I find a fishing license was charged to the 
Alhambra. 

Q. I suppose when you made up the statement of charges they were 
included in the custom-house and port charges you put in?—A. I think 
they are. They comprise a portion of that. 

Q. So of course now that they are not payable, they could not be 
charged for the years they are not payable ?—A. No. 

Q. Now, in reading this book, “ Fisheries of Gloucester,” published 
by Procter, but—before I refer to that, have you been looking into the 
question of salt ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the freight of a hogshead of salt from Liverpool ?—A, I 
don’t know. 

Q. You can’t tell?—A. No; because I don’t know. 

Q. On page 75 of this book I find that there were imported in 1870 
20,1364 hogsheads of Liverpool salt, costing $8,673 ; of Cadiz salt 24,8794 
hogsheads, valued at $13,910. In 1875 the imports were 74,032 hogs- 
heads of Cadiz salt, and 20,480 of Liverpool, 10,966 of Trepani, 3,008 
Turk’s Island, making a total of 108,486. The salt used was 106,245 
hogsheads. The value of the salt, as appears there, would be from 45 
to 47 cents per hogshead.—A. I don’t know anything about that. I 
know what it sold for. 

Q. You are speaking of the price of salt as sold out. I am speaking 
of the value of the salt there.—A. That I don’t know anything about. 

Q. What do you find it sold for—the wholesale prices ?—A. I don’t 
know. 

Q. Now one question. I understood you that in former years the 
mackerel-fishermen and owners of mackerel-vessels used to insure their 
vessels in Boston insurance offices ?—A. I think they did. 

Q. But of late years they have found it more profitable to form a 
mutual company 7—A. Yes. 

Q. That of course divides the losses among themselves, and they di- 
vide the profits, and really these 39 men who own all the fishing vessels 
of Gloucester are formed into a mutual insurance company? If they 
make $1,000 or $20,000, they get back their money in the shape of divi- 
dends; so it is really like paying a duty and getting it back. It is a 
drawback. Now, have you examined and can you tell me what profits 
are made by this company ?—A. I cannot. 

Q. You don’t know ?—A. I guess the assessments come oftener than 
the dividends. 

Q. Do you know so?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now I would like to know whether you are speaking at haphazard, 
because I have a statement under my hand.—A. Well, I haven’t been 
of late years acquainted with the working of the insurance companies; 
but when I was in business I know I had to pay assessments. 

@. Were you a shareholder 7—A. Yes; all owners of vessels are. 

Q. You have had to pay some calls. Now in this book, the “ Fisheries 
of Gloucester,” on page 73, a table of losses is given running from 1830 
to 1875. There was 333 losses, that is, an average annual loss of seven 
vessels for these years. For the past five years thé average loss has 
been greater, but that would be the total number. Now I have gone to 
the trouble of making up a little sum, and I think there must be a very 
handsome dividend divided somewhere, if they pay 4 per cent. as you 
have said. You haven’t made a statement yourself ?—A. No; but you 
may rest assured, when I go home, I shall go into this insurance busi- 
ness and know about it. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2659 


By Mr. Whiteway : 

Q. Have you ever been personally engaged in packing mackerel ?—A. 
1 have. 

Q. Curing fish ?—A. Yes; I have. 

Q. Are you quite clear there is any salt used in the curing of fish 
after having been put into the waterhouse and washed out ?—A. No, 
sir; there is none. | 

Q. I thought you were mistaken in your examination on that sub- 
ject?—A. I stated that there was salt put in before it was waterhawsed. 

Q. Is there any before it is waterhawsed?—A. There is. 

Q. Are you clear on that?—A. Yes; there is about four barrels in a 
putt, that is, eight quintals. 

Q. You are quite clear on that ?—A. I am. 

Q. Now, you gave us a statement of the operations of the Pharsalia 

on a Grand Bank voyage in 1875. That vessel was out how long 7—A. 
- Three months and eight days. 

Q. In 1875?—A. Yes, sir. . 

Q. You took this from the trip-book?—A. I did. 

Q. Well, now, what induced you to make the selection of this trip as 
_anillustration of the cost of a vessel using fresh bait and going to the 
' Grand Bank?—A. Because it covered so many ports which she entered, 
, and the different rates charged for ice and bait. 
| Q. Is it not the most expensive trip that is in that book ?—A. I think 

not. 
'  Q. Turn up the other that is more extensive. See if you can find a 
| more expensive trip than that. What years does that event cover 7—A. 
_ 1874, 1875, and a portion of 1876. 
_ Q. Now is not this the most expensive trip made by any vessel using 
| fresh bait during these years ?—A. After referring to the book—it may 
' be. From what examination I have made, I think it may be. 
_ Q. As far as you have gone, you find it to be the most expensive 
| trip?—A. Yes. 
QQ. Now, in contrast to that, you take the trip of a schooner—Madam 
| Roland—using salt bait, for the year, 1873, is it not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. She fitted with salt bait?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, on the other hand, the result of that trip was particularly 
| prosperous ?—A. No, sir. 

_ ,Q. For that year ?—A. For that year. 
_ Q. Have you the trip-book?—A. Yes, I have. (Reads from memo- 
| randam as follows:) 


Schooner George B. Loring. 
Trip-book No. 9, page 32. Trip to Grand Bank, with salt bait, from June 8th to 


| August 30th, 1874—2 months 22 days—$2,835.97 net stock. rece 91. From Septem- 
ber 10th to November 27th, 2 months 17 days, with fresh bait, $1,533.03 net stock. 


Schooner Everett Steele. 
Trip-book No. 9, July 21 to September 22nd, 1873. Salt bait, $3,756.25 net stock. — 
Schooner Madam Roland. 
Book 8, page 342, June 19 to Ang. 14, 1873, 2 months 5 days, with salt bait stocked, 


| $4,331.80 net stock. Aug. 26 to Oct. 10, 1873, salt bait, 1 month 14 days, stocked 
' $2,608.07 net stock. 


Q. Now, how do you know that these vessels used fresh bait as well 
as salt?—A. I presume they did; that bait was caught on the Banks. 


2660 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Didn’t these vessels go into any port after leaving Gloucester, and 
get fresh bait ?—A. No. 

Q. You are certain of that?—A. Yes. 

Q. From what ?—A. From the trip-book. 

Q. Can you rely always on the statements in the trip-book ?—A. I 
can, because the bait is always charged to stock. 

Q. You can always rely on the statements made in the trip-book ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Now, turn to the trip-book of the Knight Templar in 1876. Where 
does it appear that the vessel went in for fresh bait 7—A. She went into 
Bliss Island. 

Q. Anywhere else ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Does it not say anywhere else ?—A. She went in for ice to St. 
Pierre. 

Q. Didn’t she get bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Who was the captain of that vessel ?—A. Captain Gray, I think. 

Q. Well, he swears that upon that trip he was into Hermitage Bay 
and Bliss Island ?—A. Where is Hermitage Bay ? 

Mr. Foster remarks that Captain Gray didn’t say that he went into 
Nova Scotia anywhere for bait, and that “ Bliss Island ” may be a mis- 
print for Bois Island in Newfoundland. 

Mr. WHITEWAY. I only refer to it to show that the trip-book cannot 
be implicitly depended upon. 

Q. Do you consider that it is a fair criterion as regards the advan- 
tages either of salt bait or of fresh bait to take one trip in 1873 and one 
trip in 1875, one being a salt-bait trip and the other a fresh-bait trip, 
and draw conclusions as to the advantages of each respectively. Do 
you consider it fair or not to take this as a basis?—A. Let me explain 
in my answer. When I drew off this—— 

Q. Lask you a question. You can explain afterwards. (Question 
repeated.)—A. I didn’t draw any conclusions from that. 

Q. I am asking the question whether you consider it fair upon such 
premises to draw a conclusion ?—A. No; I don’t. I didn’t draw a con- 
clusion on those two trips. 

Q. Didn’t you intend to show to the Commission by those two state- 
ments the advantages of salt bait and fresh 7—A. I did. With the same 
catch of fish. They were the only two vessels I could get. I didn’t want 
to take two trips in vessels that were wide apart. 


By Mr. Foster: 

Q. Wide apart from what?—A. Wide apart in the catch. I might 
have taken extreme ones, but I wanted to give a fair average between 
the two. 

By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. Could not you find a fresh-bait one that stocked as much as the 
salt-bait ones you gave ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you mean to say there haven’t been many over and above the 
one you have given ?—A. I am not aware of it. 

‘Q. You see Captain Malloy stocked with fresh bait 3,700, and he 
didn’t consider that a very large catch. Now, can you tell me qhotnll 
the Bank fishing for 1875 was a poor fishery, below the average, or 
large fishery, above the average?—A. I could not tell you. 

Q. Have you never heard it was below the average; that is, year bel 
fore last, the Bank fishery 7—A. No; I have never heute it was below th 
average. 

Q. Do you know what the Bank fishing was in 1873, whether it was 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. —~ 2661 


above or below the average ?—A. I don’t know. I form my opinion from 
what I saw on Steele’s books. 

Q. Now, look at the trip of the Pharsalia, at which you were looking 
just now.—A. I have it before me. 

Q. You see there is an item headed ‘“ damaged fish, at one cent a 
pound.” You see that ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Will you find in the trip-book, which you presented here, another 
case of aGrand Bank fishing-vessel fishing with fresh bait, where there has 
been any damaged fish for these three years, 1874, 1875, and 1876 ?—A. 
The schooner Knight Templar. (Reads items of outfit, among others 
an item showing that she was on a salt-bait trip). 

Q. Then there is damaged fish on a salt-bait trip ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now find another case on a fresh-bait trip. (Witness refers to 
book.) 

Q. I would like, if you have any doubt, if you would take time.—A. 
That is a very small amount of bait to catch 226 barrels. 

Q. I don’t think you will find any. You see fish may be damaged on 

board a salt-bait vessel fishing on the Banks as well as on a fresh-bait 


 trip.—A. I see it. 


eT” 


a 


\ 


} 
} 


} 


t 
| 


Q. Now, will you look, please, at the Pharsalia, on the next trip, after 
she landed the cargo of which you put in an account?—A. That was in 
1873, was it not? 

Q. No, 1875.—A. She foundered at sea. 

Q. Was she an old vessel ?—A. No. 

Q. What age was she ?—A. The abstract will tell exactly. I can’t 


_ tell (after referring to abstract). She was brand new. She was lost on 


her second trip. 
Q. You stated in your examination-in-chief, in relation to the dam- 
age to the Pharsalia’s fish, as follows: 


Q. Before you leave that I want to ask you in reference to an item there—‘‘ damaged 
codfish.”—A. 18,159 pounds of damaged cod, at one cent, $135.10. 

Q. Why should there be this damaged codfish? What is the cause of it?—A. Well, 
Ihave my own opinion of the cause. 

Q. What do you believe to be the cause ?—A. I believe the cause is going in so much 
for fresh bait. 

Q. How should that damage the codfish ?—A. My opinion is that the salters salted 
it with the idea that they would not go in so much, and didn’t put so much salt on it. 
When she went into port so much, going into the warm water it heated. 


Now, you find there are damaged fish, as well with salt-bait fishing, as 
with fresh ?—A. I do find it. 

Q. And it.is upon that one case of damaged fish with fresh bait that 
you arrive at this conclusion?—A. I could not account for it in any 
other way. : 

Q. But it is this one case that you drew this conclusion from ?—A. Yes. 


| &. And you would lead the Commission to believe, then, that fish was 


liable to be damaged, because of vessels going in for fresh bait, because 
of this one vessel on this one cruise ?—A. No, I don’t now, I have seen 
that other case. 

Q. You withdraw what you said before?—A. I withdraw as far as 
that is concerned. 

Q. Have you ever been on the Banks fishing ?—A. I haven’t. 

Q. Then, you would not presume to put your opinion in contradiction 


to the opinion of experienced men who had been there six or seven years, 
_ if they testified contrary to you?—A. No, sir; of course not. 


> 


2662 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Turning to page 367 of your testimony, you will find the following 
question and answer: 


Q. Now, can you give us a similar statement of the cost of a vessel for trawling 
halibut on the Banks, made out in the same manner for the Centennial?—A. Yes; I 
have it, as follows: 


Cost of a new schooner at Gloucester, Mass., in 1875, fitted for trawling halibut on the Banks. 


Vessel of 71 tons; cost $8,000. Vessel made nine trips to Western and Grand Banks, 
being at sea 302 days, with 12 men for crew, at the following expense, viz: 


ETAWI-GGAR seciccs Sou ceciecs woes ce cendecnsase sae euceiene 5 eeetranee ee $1, 023 25 
Vessel’s expense acconnty72 32.6 Sie ercbcslsacareatalebcioe nosed toot cas eke 1, 823 25 
IPFOVISIODS SOCCs Joe oc ae nae eee echoes 2 Vaca eee Cee cis ne Sem niente pete 1, 426 03 
General’ charges, ice; bait; salt; Gos... cssccscccs sess ec ces cscs stouetessss 1, 135 50 

5,408 64 


Now, whose schooner was that?—A. Joseph O. Procter’s. 

Q. Now, take the vessel’s expense account, $1,825.25; is that taken 
from Proctor’s own account ?—A. Yes, sir; he gave it to me. 

Q. It was not anything you made up?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, on page 374 the following questions and answers are re- 
ported: 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Now, you have here in this broadside the vessel’s expense account, $1, 825.25.. 


Do they call that an expense account? Is that the way they entitle it on the books 
in making up the account ?—A. No; it is all put in one account. All the things for 
the vessel are put in one account. These were separated for this special purpose. 

Q. Now, you take this expense account, what period of time does it cover ?—A. 
Three hundred and two days. 
; Q. Now, what are the items of the vessel’s expense account ?—A. They are as fol- 
OWS: 


Vessel, 71 tons; cost, $8,800. Fitted for trawling halibut. 


TRAWL-GEAR. 

TWINGE wo sce Wawa cee ese cies Se eeaw es seeds Me Ska oe edee ee ws Veen oes oe eS $5 

S baskets i222 sve css cececteces daiSue com ccoe mone mumetoe as een eaee cee 6 

22: DUOYS <5 222 556 Pe salvoaas tices ates secs aodesitcas See ete owacacee 11 

20 DUCK OB sss e eae ciao asielelc desea aie.ccnsSueuslcaecisce coos Secceneees 5 

AG fileswscn sc.ose cS eracsioa ctor aoe cis taciec incre ae se cetine ee aaa eon ae ciate 6 

2, 405 JUS. @rOUNG- MNOS. oc sasveccns Qaeede soe ces tae bsn conc ccsmeenteneeocas 444 

B46 IDS. : RANGING BOR. vecciccce anos sess tes oes seaseaasscarcuaenese ces 410 

QE ENIVER ss isc cis Soce oae Sonate cose cae coh cates cae neers eens 15 

MZIBtONOR cca cccisse sions csaesioe nena saseessccencessccccclscuessmoeeeesers 

Se Stalie wows wasos,s once = Seale soo miemaenes cos neeceep wae de eeeeaes 5 

SOO Tbs DUOY-lING wows conc oo na ccas deasucicwce cose ccc adalsccecscueencesloces 64 

A doz DIoOMass ss incsiseosiecente see cela seale Te cme eee oaes cee eee 9 

52 gross Hooks 3.2 js ccc sss sk wadesscwass cbevieconcees csc ceteet sss se 109 

23) lbs; lobster-Gwih << ojcsceis= tose c casi -csewe see ce teu saat ee ene 8 

GOLICS Js:2tecieenoaaac ccs see ajeeebs cle see eo monies ee ccuse ote coe meen s 130 

Iron and copper tanks sc. ss<eassc tees ss dacelosos.ssesaccosccues sesceeece 1 

A RNOVEIS cos co Sar cecccisicesettese Se Rha wes See ne ent nena Pare Co ee ee ooe as 3 

ANCHORS? 2 h2 0) Jase scae cts aa csisies oe saesss cae ees sete clea se cede teccins cates eeee 40 

Oare ANG BCOOPS was 26 Saar ace g os cicec neous coc ceiecceelssencs poesweeeececs 47 
1, 023 25 

VESSEL’S EXPENSE 

Spiny Varmie oe ooo ds cs cd eae SUNN S Ses pes eke en ceed Wieoes eabeee aiee oe $7 48 
POroGlind: ves ssisvausccwusss cotdee sx ceive oad cattece enka Shecseemasseeanee 23 00 
POGLHAT Soct.u cacpecica peat conowewers cadedans ciieessaubactes cca ees eae iae 11 29 
oH DANES. vane dcdh ce aceeund calwes ssccapwe cawedesvevlcor teres ecaenenue 1 30 
INATG a oe soca a Ved de ued alae aca dakee cones aa pee ee at one ee 1 32 
Pini WarG, GcG.cs cvcb va Soa ccc datas wecs dee cack sucius comee cure cebewaaaeelas 7TR5O 
D.BtChOr 1ONG. ici oees scancessagebed sacenceaceeacatyecme ee Scualednossvamens 48 96 


SSSNSRSSERASRUSSSSES 


~_— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~ 2663 

Topmast (broken) ...-. Bi ewee cece cece ces cocnes sowees cons socdee cocces ctcces $12 00 
Paint and painting... .2. .....0 ccee coos cone cone ence cece cons coccee coccee 90 00 
Railway fee... ... 2... 2-2... 22 cen n ne cece e cece es conn ne com ene teen ce ceee cee 15 00 
Rigger ------ .----- +--+ 22 - ee oe ee ne ee end ee nee ee ee cee eee eee cece eee 47 00 
RG as cia Saas ono cn ais amthed ach en te us au cesolbes << os.cccs a cece 60 00 
CORDONTER- « « «22 0-2 oe ces n cece ee son m ec cw sees cccene cece escccs coccccs cscs 65 00 
MM SORMIA:. «cates sso0gaden= ccametietao> «acs ecdeieeccsamevdbheace 163 00 
nT ADERROUNG woes. ons oes ss oc cmateaeea aces cee ceeesc saeeanaewase 43 00 
EY wilco vancs Seuetnc ac cocclsaes sac capane@uc cose ccwadsiascece sesueetaes 539 00 
Commissions to skipper.-..-....-.... Cater eee gelbeestincsuerecee we 46& 00 
AIOHG Sooo) r ieee sito o cy eo one.s soe paeraas cso c de sage ane seen ee aeeees 80 00 
NEED. 7. eo aizc os coess t2s5/cene saciccelecatar s eo savcacensasccccceumecs 38 00 
ENTE LO so oan ac as'cscgen os ccucnteeba nee sdtu bees s ienenesaaene 14 00 
1, 823 85 


Q. Now many of those are actually consumable during the season, so 
that at the end of the season what is left is of little account. But there 
are some items that may last over another year. Now, except in the 
ease of some large permanent expenditures, in making up this account 
do they charge an article that may last one or two years to the year in 
which it is bought, or do they undertake to distribute it over the time 
for which it is likely to last ?—A. No; it is charged to the vessel at the 
time it is procured. 

Q. They don’t undertake to distribute such things over the time they 
would probably be useful ?—A. No. 

Q. Would it be practicable to do that except where it might be re- 
quired, as for instance in chancery proceedings ?—A. No. 

Q. Is that considered as giving a fair result in the end, charging the 
articles as they are bought, although some of them may outlast the 
year ?—A. That is the way it is usually done. 

Q. Then you know this to be an actual account furnished by Mr. 
Proctor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. It is made up according to the usage 7—A. Yes.. 

Q. If you were asked to make an equitable assessment of all these 
charges, for instance, if it was an estate that required to be settled, or 
if it were required to assign to each year the portion of the expenses 
that would strictly fall to the account of that particular year, you would 
have to make a differencei n the case of articles that lasted over this one 
year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. But that would not be the way the expense account is practically 
made up?—A. No. 

Q. But this is the way they do the business ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the statement you presented was the actual statement of the 
expenses of that vessel for the year taken ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever put in an account of what would be the annual ex- 
penditure, supposing the cost of such articles to be distributed over the 
years during which they would last ?—A. No; I have not. 

4 oA Have you since prepared such a statement?—A. I have; it is 4s 
ollows : ; 


_ Average yearly expense of a Gloucester fishing vessel, engaged for nine months in the 
- fisheries, the average life of the vessels being about 14 years. 


eermninting, tWI0l OATS... ss s-ss00 dawecs ss cceeiescuas scen'SQus eves $150 00 
Marine railway, fees for hauling out. ...... .-.22. ..--20 eee cee coceee oss Reese YORE 
5 ue! new suit of sails (have to be renewed once in two years) ..---.---.----- 300 
| Ordinary expense for repairs and storage of sails........---. ~.------+-.---- 40 
Snees standing rigging, $5 for Junk ...... sce .. cco cosconscccegeecces 20 
running rigging, yearly (has to be renewed every 2 years)....-...--..----- 125 
gers, average yearly cost (overhauling rigging once in 4 years, $75) .... be 


$ of (230 fathoms 8} inch cable every 3 years) $450 -..... 2.22. ---- eee eene- 1 


> 


2664 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Oné'anchor average lous yearly. .-----<- 367 - -< sere nce aes mic sear sess wee 
+ of calking (vessel has to be recalked once in7 years for $140) $20, additional 

Oonb yearly beald GgB10 ces ae oe cca cy See ore eee amen een onic 4 
Tin ware @00.StOVGWSES=.5- 2. othe ones oo cee see eee soe es teosioeee = 
+ of cook’s stove (renewed once in three years, for $30) ........--.--...----. 
+ of cabin stove (renewed once in three years, for $10).-.--..----..----.---- 
Lanterns and, lamp-chimnoys. 22-2 -<-+ = 2 1<=22 eee so - aa saslers aac - eens nous 
Stove-funnels, yoarly:.s2 2s cso cc .on o> oes oe weeee ac ene eerar See eeae ewe sees 


nowese & 
sugsss 8 


Orie-half for gulf fishing 42; months: -25---.scssc 2-1 se neeac sess coe as sageae 479 62 


Then I have the expenses of mackerel-fishing gear for a season of 4$ 
months, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, put on board of a Gloucester 
schooner: 


Expenses of makerel-fishing gear for a season of 44 months in Gulf of St. Lawrence, put 
on board of a Gloucester schooner. Average— 


5: gross: mackerel, hooks, at 906.2. 22.222 45-5012 2 = pense ebinsiccieecle's sida teces $4 50 
44, 00z,, mackerel linda; ab O 1:50! 2 2c scons) oasis James ties cos ca sees socsis ae eee 9 37 
2 cod-fishing lines fitted, $5, less one returned ...-..-...---. .-----.------ --e- 2 50 
a2 bbls: block-tinsat 506 1.222 Soyer ceeds sneoas span eames saisose se saeere ee eis 6 00 
2, Coz: Dait-Tniv OG; BE BUDS ic cc hone cee sasaueeans seesaw tan see -cdaeteeraas 2 50 
2 Gos: splitting -Enives, 86 $1.25 2.220. 2.2 cas cue scone yarens paseeun eer eces 1 2% 
1 Glati-OhoOpper Geo 6 2s Ses nc cog see coeeceeniees ote adeeteu ase Bese eet as «. 200 
sinests kKeelersyat So-22<-4--2sse555- Bae eh eee A rte a a pee a egies 9 00 
didozen:serub-brooms) at So 4. -42ci- <= le notes Soe aoe cee ray cewsse eee see eee 3 00 
I} dozen: buckets ne 3522 cso ooe sca hear Sea oe mee we we oe aiees Wee Ue eae eee 4 50 

+ d0ZOn aGZ08! So, 1088/3 TObUTNOG, Sl.o0. 2.50 toes scence cose nace eee elec e wee ke 150- 
} dozen flagging-irons, $3, less 3 returned, $1.50......-. ..-..-.---------- ee een 1 50 
5 pounds flags for barrels, at 40 cents .--...........-....---. Soo e sae aay 2 00 
3 jig-molds, $1.50, Jeas 1 retumed, 50 conts.2.52-72sccosccecs cs ces ees ances 1 00 
Diadles: $1, .worthvone-half rejurmed.-~-.<ssscecte= = co- so ioe ee Saar ees fe ce 50 
4: dozen bushel-baskets;ati$0.. .c-<..oa-sc eee cess ec ceec et cake ce ee sn ceeeee ee 3 00 
2 bait-boxes, $4). worth half returned... 2.22. - cas. 2-2 So ac< cece os cecneixee seo ee 2 00 
+ dozen bait-heavers, at $3 .........-... cate ee co ee ce mee doses Sosa eae 1 50 
20 NeGkorol-galie, BE SLO ccs fica ps mawsinane. open eae aes naman Vor ween cae set see 7 50 
65 12 


Q. Is there any material change to be made in the general charges 
for provisions, trawl-gear, &c.?—A. I don’t make any. I leave the 
statements I have put in just as they stand, because they are actual 
statements of the cost of those things on a particular vessel at the 
time shown in the statements. 

Q. Charged in the way they charged them?—A. Yes. 

Q. These statements you have made for your own information. I did 
not ask you to do so; but these statements you have just read show 
what the items would be if you had to make a nice distribution of the 
cost over the time during which they would last ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, then, when Mr. Davies treated the statement of expense put 
in before as being an exact equitable assessment on each year, that was 
not what you meant, was it?—A. Of course not. 

Q. Now, I observe in Mr. Davies’ cross-examination that he took up 
the Daniel McPhee. The evidence is reported as follows: 

Q. When was it prepared 7—A. It was prepared before I left home. 

Q. What was the tonnage of the Daniel McPhee ?—A. About 60 tons, I think. 

Q. You prepared this statement yourself ?—A. Yes. 

. From your own books ?--A. Yes. 

Q. Will you read the column of catches in which the 17 barrels appeared ?—A. 548, 
230, ae 41, 17, 864, 244, 207, 275, 325, 310, 326}, 385,57. They are shore and gulf 
mixed, 

Q. Will you take out the shore ?—A. 57, 864. 


Q. The catches on your shore appear to be small compared with the others ?—A. 
The 564 barrels were caught in five days off our shores. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~- 2665 


Q. But the small catches ap to have been taken on your shore. The 300 barrel 
catches you have read were taken in the bay 7—A. Not all of them. 

Q. I asked you to read those which were caught on your shores. You did read them. 
Were not the 300 barrel catches taken in the bay 7—A. Yes; those were caught in the 


gulf. 
Now, that one column that Mr. Davies called for is of the first trips 
of all the vessels ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Now, does that give a fair indication of the relative value of the 
shore and gulf fisheries ?—A. 1 don’t think it does. 
Q. Why not ?—A. Because there was more fishing on the shore on 
the second trip than on the first. 
Q. The question was confined to the first trip ?—A. Yes; some made 
only one trip in the gulf. 
Q. Now, on page 383, there is a question, ‘Is not Mr. Steele what you 
- eall a fish merchant 2?” and the answer is, “ He is not a fish buyer.” Is 
that correct as it stands? What does it mean?—A. We have men in 
— Gloucester known as buyers aside from the merchants who carry on the 
business. 
 Q. They buy cargoes when they are brought in ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do they prepare them for market after they have been salted and 
_ packed ?—A. Yes. 
| en Well, they are the men that cut them up into strips?—A. Cod- 
, yes. 

QQ. They are buyers of codfish as well as buyers of mackerel 7—A. Yes. 
 Q. Then Mr. Steele is not one of those, but sells? You are asked, 
_ “Does he sell his own fish that his vessels have caught?” and answer 
“He does.” What do you mean by that answer ?—A. I mean that he 
_ Sells them to the buyers. : 
 Q. He does not send them to market ?—A. No. 
_ ~ Q. So he does not sell his own fish in the sense that he is a general 
ee” wholesale and retail, or jobber, but he sells to “ buyers” ?—A. 
es. 

Q. In other words, he is a producer ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now on page 182 you are asked and answer as follows: 

Q. Take vessels fishing off your own coast. With regard to wear and tear, don’t you 
| think the wear and tear of vessels fishing off your own coast would be more than that 
» of vessels fishing in the gulf during the months they fish there ?—A. I do not. 

Q. Not in the winter season ?—A. We fish on our shores all the year round. 

_ ~~ Q. Is not the wear and tear greater on your coast than in the galf during the sum- 
f mer months when they fish there ?—A. I should say it was. 

Q. How did you understand that?—A. I supposed it to allude to the 
_ Winter season. 

__Q. Now, comparing your wear and tear on your own coast during 
| these 44 months with the wear and tear in the gulf during the same 
» period, which would be the greatest 7—A. I should say in the gulf. 

Q. What advantages are there on our coast apart from its being less 

| boisterous?—A. Harbors more handy. 
-Q. Anything else?—A. Well, they have more facilities of seeing the 
_ Storm signals to avoid danger. 
Q. You have no doubt that for the same period of time our shore is 
less dangerous than the gulf. Now in autumn vessels are not permitted 
_to go to the gulf. Is any vessel permitted to sail for the. gulf from 
Gloucester after the 1st of November ?—A. I think not. 
' Q. Do not the insurance companies go round and close up their busi- 
ness after the lst November ?—A. Yes; that is the general practice. It 
used to be the practice always to close up after the lst November. 


2666 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. The vessels then out were allowed to come in; they had their poli- 
cies renewed or extended ?—A. Yes. 

Q. At certain rates?—A. Yes; increased rates. 

Q. Now, turning to page 384, you are asked and answer as follows: 

Q. What would you be prepared to say to-day is the profit they make on supplies 
furnished to the families of fishermen ?—A. About ten per cent. 

Q. Not more than that ?—A. It would not be over that. 


Q. You know that sometimes they lose the supplies ?—A. I know they de, 
Q. And don’t they make sufficient profit to cover all that?—A. I aon t think they 


Oo. — 

Q. You think they are not shrewd enough men to make the charge sufficient to in- 
sure them against loss ?—A. They might. 

Q. What do you mean by that?—A. Well, I mean this, that some 
might do it. 

Q. Now, do they in point of fact, do the Gloucester merchants charge 
interest on the cash they advance to the families of seamen ?—A. I 
don’t think they do. 

Q. Did you ever know an instance in which it was done ?—A. No. 

Q. It might be and you not know it, but your opinion is that they 
do not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Why is it that they donot? Is the period long ?—A. No; not as 
a general thing. 

Q. And do you think they charge any more than the retail prices ?— 
A. They do not. 

Q. So as far as the families are concerned, the profits are the differ- 
ence between retail and wholesale? Now is there any public opinion 
that bears on that sort of thing ?—A. Yes; I think if any vessel-owner 
was to take advantage of the families of the crew, he would not get 
crews to go for him. 

Q. The fishermen, of course, find out about it when they get home ?— 
A. Yes; they very soon know. 

Q. They are not obliged to go for the same owners again ?—A. No. 

Q. It is for the interest of the owners, where there is so much com- 
petition, to treat the men well ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now there is another inquiry : 

. Would you put the four leading men in Gloucester down at worth from $20,000 
to 30, 000 each ?—A. I don’t think anybody in the fishing business in Gloucester is 
worth over $30,000. 

Q. Do you mean to include the money made outside the fishing busi- 
ness ?—A. No. 

Q. Now as to Mr. Steele’s property ; it only goes to the value of your 


opinion and does not affect your credit, but I want that put ‘right. I | 


think you said Mr. Steele’s property was taxed at $20,000. Now state 
what the assessment is based on according to Massachusetts law. Is it 
not on what property would sell at for cash ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Not sold on credit? It does not of course mean a forced sale, but 
with reasonable notice. Now, you speak of his having nine vessels run- 
ning and put them at an average of $5,000 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, do you think that is a proper sum to put in making up the 
account between Mr. Steele and his‘own vessels ?—A. I do. 

Q. What do you think those nine vessels or any one of them would 
have sold for this year in cash, the sale being made at Gloucester with 
reasonable time and notice ? Would they bring anything like $5,000 ?— 
A. No. 

Q. It would be difficult to determine ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. The number put on the market affects the price?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2667 


Q. The vessels being designed solely for the fishing business, would 
not sell as would other vessels ?—A. No. 

Q. But suppose Mr. Steele was living and wanted to close up his 
business, but was in no hurry and could take his own time about it, and 

could sell them for cash or at credit, and could take them to any port 
' where there seemed to be a demand—he might, by taking plenty of time, 
exercise skill and judgment, and selling on credits, realize $5,000 each, 

for the vessels ?—A. Yes. 

» Q. In other words, is there any necessary connection between what 
nine fishing-vessels would bring sold for cash on reasonable notice, not 
forced, and the value which ought to be taken when settling between 
himself and his vessels as to the result of their voyages 7—A. I think 
there is. 

Q. Do you wish to alter your estimate that in making up those ac- 
counts Mr. Steele’s vessels should be entered at $5,000 each ?—A. No. 

Q. You were asked a number of questions in regard to Mr. Steele’s 
taxable property. His taxable property you first estimated at $20,000. 
You afterwards thought it would be $25,000, and you said you thought 
he would be worth $35,000. When you made your first estimate you 
were asked what the firm was worth. Did you think at the time of in- 
eluding any personal property Mr. Steele might have, and real estate, 
disconnected with the business ?—A. I did not. 

Q. Do you wish to change your statement?- Are you inclined to pat 
his property at more than $35,000 ?—A. I think that is really the cash 
value. 

Q. At the same time, you would not alter the mode of making up the 
accounts ?—A. I think the vessels are worth $5,000 in his business. 

Q. Those vessels, no doubt, all stand in his name, but do you know 
whether he owns the whole of all of them?—A. I don’t know. I pre- 
sume he does not. 

Q. Why so? Heisa rich man.—A. Nearly every owner in Glouces- 
ter has more or less shares of his vessels owned by his skippers. 

Q. Is it for the interest of the vessel owner that his skipper shou d 
be interested in the ship ?—A. It is generally supposed so. 

Q. What portion does a skipper generally own in a vessel in cases 
pore he is not a capitalist ?7—-A. The owner generally gives him one- 

ourth. 
_ Q. And he pays for it as he can?—A. Yes, 

Q. Do you know whether that is a matter of personal trade, or is the 
captain’s name entered at the custom-house ?—A. There is a bond some- 
times. 

Q. A bond between them ?—A. Yes. Sometimes a bill of sale is given 
and a mortgage taken back. 

Q. On page 387 of your evidence there is the following : 

Q. You have proved him from theory to be bankrupt beyond all redemption, when in 
fact he is a capitalist worth $45,000, which exhibits the difference between the practi- 
cal statement and the theory—A. Yes; but he had capital when he went into the 

ness. 

Q. Did you mean to say that $45,000 was his capital ?—A. I think I 
hardly answered itin that way; [ might have said it, if it is so recorded. 

Q. The evidence also reads : ; 

Q. Do you state that he brought it in with him?—A. One-half of it was made in 
the sail-making business. 

Q. Then one-half of the capital he now has was made in the sail- 
making business ?—A. I should think so. 


4a 


2668 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. And the rest in the fishing business during 19 years. You meant 
to say that he brought into the business the capital he had made as a 
sailmaker, and added to it from the fishing business during 19 years ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. On page 387 of your evidence there is the following: 

Q. And that shows the values at which he settled with his men ?—A. Ye. 

a oe Does it show the actual cash price which he received for these 33,645 barrels 7— 
es. 

Q. Will you explain ?—A. Remember that this is for the fish and the packing which 
he receives when he sells the trip. 

Explain what that means.—A. When he sells the fish the barrel i is sold 
with it, so that the packing is included in the sale. In the books it is 
made up without charging the packing in the value of the fish; and 
when he sells it, he sells it with the barrel. 

Q. And when he settles with his crew the packing is taken out of the 
price?—A. Yes; that is customary. 

Q. On page 388 of your evidence there is the following: 

Q. Then his expenditure for the Pharsalia was a little below the ordinary ran ?—A. 
Yes; it is below the average. 

Q. And this item represents the actual expenditure taken from the books ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are the items for outfit and expenses put down also from actual expenditures ?— 
No; they are estimates. 

Did you reckon there anything more than barrels packed out in mak- 
ing your statement for the settlement of the crew? There are more 
sea barrels than packed barrels?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the difference—about 10 per cent. ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. If barrel is exchanged for barrel do you make any allowance for 
10 per cent.?—A. I see by my reply I said they are estimates. Does 
that apply to the Pharsalia ? 

Mr. DAvisEs. That question related to the reason why you charged 
$450, when in the sample statement it only showed $415 as being ex- 
pended. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Did you mean to apply that to the Pharsalia?—A. I did not. 

Q. Have you any alteration to make that would add to the cost with 
respect. to the barrels? Might not the cost on them and interest on them 
be very fairly taken off?—A. If I was going to make up the account 
again, I would make it up more clearly in my own mind by taking off 
the average cost of running and vessel’s gear, and then I would make 
a difference between sea and packed barrels. Those barrels had to go 
on board, and were part of the outfit, and the increased cost should be 
considered. Then, again, I did not calculate anything for the barrels 
the bait was in. The bait was charged in net stock there with the bar- 
rels taken out—only the bait. As the bait was taken out, the barrels 
could be used for holding mackerel. 

Q. On page 388 of your evidence you were asked : 

Q. You charge $8,500 for salt, for as many barrels at $1 a barrel; one-half of it would 
be profit, and that would leave $4, 250 as profit ?—A. Yes. 

What does that mean ?—A. If I answered “ yes,” I answered it with- 
out thought, because there is no such profit as that on a barrel of salt. 

Q. What is about the rate of profit?—A. I should not set down the 
profit on a barrel of salt at more than 124 cents or 25 cents. 

@. There are eight bushels to a hogshead 7—A. Yes. 

Q. A bushel of salt is a struck measure, and does not hold so much 
as a bushel of other articles ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2669 


Q. The following questions were put to you, by Mr. Davies, on 
page 389: 

Q. I find from your statements that after the Washington Treaty was entered into, 
Mr. Steele withdrew his vessels from your shore fishery and concentrated all his efforts 
on the bay; am I correct in making that statement ?7—A. In 1870 and 1871 he did not 
send any vessels to the bay. 

Q. But in 1872 he commenced sending them to oe Hie ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And he has sent them there ever since —A. Y 

. And he has since sent none to fish on your Heke 1—A. No. 

Q. Since 1872 he has sent none to fish on your shore, but has sent all his vessels to 
fhe bay ?—A. Yes. 

Have you any statement to show how Mr. Steele distributed his ves- 
sels? In 1858 how many vessels had he?—A. In 1858 he fitted 8 
schooners. 

Q. How were they distributed ?—A. All 8 schooners went into the 
bay, and one went to the shore one day. 

Q. In 1859 how many vessels had he?—A. He fitted 10; all went to 
the bay, and none to the shore. 

Q. In 1860 ?—A. Fitted 11; 8 to the bay, and three to the shore. 

Q. 1861 ?—A. Fitted 11; 7 to the bay, and 4 to the shore. 

Q. 18622?—A. Fitted 11; 5 went to the bay, 2 to the shore after they 
returned from the bay. 

Q. 1863?—A. Fitted 9; 6 went to the bay, 2 to the shore for one 
month and 24 days, after returning from the bay. 

Q. 1864?—A. Fitted 8; 8 went to the bay, none to the shore. 

Q. 18657—A. Fitted 8; 8 went to the bay, none to the shore. 

Q. 1866?—A. Fitted 10; 10 went to the bay, none to the shore. 

Q. 1867?—A. Fitted 10; 9 went to the bay, 1 to the shore for 18 days 
after returning from the bay. 

Q. 1868?—A. Fitted 10; 5 went to the bay, the rest went cod-fishing. 

Q. 1869?—A. Fitted 8; 6 went to the bay, none to the shore. 

Q. 1870?—A. Fitted 7; none went to the bay, 5 to the shore. 

Q. 1871?7—A. Fitted 6; none went to the bay, 3 to the shore. 

Q. Now comes the first year of the Washington Treaty. How many 
vessels did he fit in 1872?7—A. 10 vessels; 2 went to the bay and 2 to 
the shore, and the rest went cod-fishing. 

Q. 18732—A. Fitted.8; 4 went to the bay, none to the shore, and 4 


codfishing. 


_ Q. 18742—A. Fitted 9; 3 went to the bay, the rest went codfishing. 

'Q. 187527—A. Fitted 9: 3 went to the bay. 

Q. 187627—A. Fitted 13; 5 went to the bay. 

Q. Taking all those years together, do you see any striking difference 
in bay-fishing before and after 1872 ?—A. I do not. 

Q. You find that many years long before the Washington Treaty he 


| did not send any vessels shore-fishing. Did he ever do ‘much at shore- 
_ fishing ?—A. No. 


Q. Did he ever go into it fully?—A. No. I don’t think he ever 


| owned a seiner. 


Q. Therefore he never tried seining on the shore ?—A. No. 
Q. He did not much enter into the mackerel-fishing on our shores _— 


| A. No. 


Q. His shore-mackerel business is no test of the general shore-mack- 


| erel business 7?—A. No. 


Q. You know that the word chartering sometimes means hiring and 


_ sometimes letting. In speaking of chartering, did you mean to say that 


there were no cases of chartering vessels either in the form of letting 


2670 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


or hiring vessels for fishing in Gloucester ?—A. There are cases of hiring 
vessels for fishing. 

Q. Who does it?—A. It is generally done by outside vessels. 

Q. Who hires them ?—A. Sometimes a successful skipper will charter 
a vessel. 

Q. You mean hire a vessel?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do Gloucester merchants, who are fitters-out and producers of fish, 
let their vessels?—A. No. ~ 

Q. Do they hire vessels?—A. Some do, butit.is very seldom doneg 
there are merchants who do not own vessels. 

Q. The business of hiring vessels does not amount to anything im- 
portant. Do you mean to say there is no such thing ?7—A. No. 

Q. What do you think is the average life of a fair fishing-vessel, not 
an extraordinarily good or unusually bad vessel ?—A. The average life 
of the. vessels owned in Gloucester, in 1876, was 13.34 years. 

Q. Do you make that out from documents ?—A. From an annual pub- 
lication published by John S. E. Rogers, of Gloucester, Mass. 

Extract handed in as follows : 

The years are given in which 467 of the vessels in the list were built, the balance 
being boats of which no record is kept of their age. A comparison of them will indi- 
cate pretty nearly the depressions and prosperity of the fishing business during the 
last twenty-five years. The oldest vessel in the district is the schooner Magnet, of 
Annisquim, which was built in 1837; the next oldest is the schooner Gilde, of Manches- 
ter, builtin 1839. The oldest vessel in Gloucester Harbor is the schooner Meteor, built 
in 1844. Each year since 1844 has furnished one or more of the vessels which make 
up our list, as follows: 


Year. No. | Year. No. 
VE Geee pees eheecss 75 Je fad Bo 0 Nac are at ert A Rae 5 
NSS icacwicccceass.sece se OO" OOO ewes ce we cieuee tect 5 
US7Aca 2. cccca cageces Soho | OOS cos cae een access 2 
LST o suce taeees es oacce cf 12 | MISG Recess eccees totes 1 
RODS e we wects essen) LOT ULOOU Sock: n es oecrsee oe 24 
FOU saee sccm ee setaee cos 22 WV NOOOR aso cone fee eee 22 
NSIO Ss bess Noose cecee 2S. | SOB ccoade sack wece cs 16 
1869 so ee esece see teoe SOU TB Bios pewaicecstesoulees 9 
S682 2eo a onee eee ee WLSOOioe ks aerce ccc eee 4 
go 1Y gan er ee ee eo 351s] ABODl vee wecrew co eevecees 5 
T866i. = oso lacse ee cues BO! PCOS Gee asccwcdee scons 5 
ESOS 25osos Seceeee ee 5 GS (a to's are eee eee es 13 


Q. Do you suppose it to be correct on that point?—A. Yes; for the 
compiler is very accurate in getting up statistics. 

Q. That is the average age of vessels existing at the time ?—A. Yes. 
I may explain that this book gives the year each vessel was built and 
the number of vessels built in each year down to 1876. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Do you mean that the average life of a vessel would be about 14 
years ?—A. I think so. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Do you mean that it is as long as the vessels can go a trip?—A. © 


Of the vessels in the fishing business, owned in Gloucester, the average 
age was a trifle under 14 years. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. When a vessel is brought into Gloucester, not new, do the tables 
show where she was built ?—A. The table shows the year when and 
where built. : 

Q. Some vessels are pretty old ?—A. One vessel in the table was built 
in 1837, 


—— 


" 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2671 


Q. You have said that Mr. Steele never did any seining on the Amer- 
ican shore ?—A. I don’t think he ever did. 

Q. Seining has come into general vogue, has it not 7—A. Yes. 

Mr. Davies. The years I took were the years of the Reciprocity Treaty 
when there was nv seining. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. As to insurance. Those merchants of Gloucester who own vessels 
form a company; that is really a sort of annual company ?—A. A com- 
ny formed every year. 
Q. It closes up every year 1—A. Yes. 
Q. The day it expires is 1st November ?—A. They have now organ- 
ized it to continue the year round. 
Q. But there is a new company once a year 7?—A. Yes. 
Q. All matters are closed up each year ?—A. Yes. 
Q. If the vessel do not return by a certain date a sum is placed in the 
| suspense account ?—A. Yes. 
Q. They don’t actually pay premiums and receive dividends ?—A. No. 
Q. They give their notes, and at the end of the year there is an as- 
sessment ?—A. They are assessed from time to time. 
 Q. And at the end of the year, if necessary, there is an assessment ?— 
_ A. There is a final assessment. 
Q. There is no dividend paid 7—A. No. 
_  Q, The crew have nothing to do with insurances ?—A. No. 
_ Q. Do you know how the owner is able to assign to each vessel the 
/ amount it ought to pay ?—A. Each vessel is charged with the amount 
| for insurance paid out during the year to the company. 
_ Q. It is divided among different owners?—A. Each vessel is put in at 
 acertain valuation, according to her age; the insurance amounts to so 
' much, and each owner is charged with the insurance on that vessel. 
Q. They don’t actually pay out that insurance, do they ?—A. Yes; if 
itis not paid out in one season it is in another. ‘They give their notes,. 
) and when there is an assessment on the insurance they pay the amount. 
Q. They are not charged on an ordinary note ?7—A. They give a pre- 
| mium note. 
By Mr. Davies: 


Q. If there is no assessment made, the premium note, I suppose, is re- 
turned to him?—A. I presume so. 
Q. You have stated that the average age of fishing-vessels sailing out 

} of Gloucester is fourteen years ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Some of the vessels are, I suppose, twenty-five years old ?—A. 
' Yes; some more than that. 

Q. One nearly forty years old 7—A. Yes. 

-Q. I see by this book that 22 vessels were built in 1876 ?—A. Yes. 

—Q. 38 in 1875; 22 in 1874; 12 in 1873; 13 in 1872; 24in 1860; 24 in 
1859; 18 in 1858 ; 90 vessels. were built previous to 1858, and would be 
be from 19 years ‘old to 40 years ?—A. Yes. 
_ Q. In regard to packing; in the statement you made up of Mr. 
‘Steele’s vessels you told me you tvok the prices of his mackerel from 
‘the books?—A. Yes. 
| Q. This statement you made up representing the voyages of 107 of 
‘Mr. Steele’s vessels does not include packing 7—A. No. 
' Q. You were asked a question about Mr. Steele’s capital, and you 
‘said about one-half had been made by him in the sail- making business, 
and the other half since. Do you really know as a matter of fact what 
Mr. Steele’s a is ?—A. I do not. 


2672 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. It may be, for anything you know, $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000? 
—A. It may be. 

Q. You have no means of knowing what is his capital ?—A. I have 
no means of knowing. 

Q. You really don’t know what Mr. Steele’s capital is, and you have > 
no means of knowing?—A. I donot. When youasked me that question 
previously I was entirely unprepared, and I gave you an estimated 
value. 

Q. You now say you really don’t know what his capital is?—A. I 
not; only from my judgment, and from the common estimation of his 
valuation in the city. I never went to the assessor’s books to see what 
his property was valued at. 

Q. There is one answer which struck me as a little curious. In reply 
to a question by Mr. Dana you said the wear and tear of a vessel on 
your coast is less than the wear and tear of a vessel in Bay St. Law- 
rence ?—A. I think so. 

Q. The reason you gave was because their harbors were so handy ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not in evidence before this Sonnnesion that the general fish- 
ing is from 15 to 100 miles off your coast?—A. I have referred to the 
shore mackerel-fleet and the bay mackerel-fleet in my estimate. 

Q. Does not the American fleet fishing for mackerel off your shores 
fish from 15 to 100 miles off shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is not Georges Bank one of the places where they fish ?7—A. Some- 
times, but very seldom there. 

Q. It is a very dangerous place?—A. Yes; in the winter season. 

Q. Don’t you know that the vessels fishing for mackerel in Bay St. 
Lawrence fish within 50, 40, or 20 miles of the shore?—A. That may be. 

Q. Therefore your reason cannot be correct, when your vessels fishing 
off your coast are further away from the harbors than vessels in the 
bay ?—A. Off the New England coast there is more sea-room. You 
know that in Massachusetts Bay they have plenty of sea-room, while in 
the gulf they have not. 

Q. Do you mean to contend that the wear and tear of a vessel fishing 
off the American coast in November is not greater than the wear and 
tear of a vessel fishing in the Bay St. Lawrence in August?—A. Of 
course not; it is not a parallel case. 

Q. You mean only during the months they fish in the bay 7—A. And 
the same months on our shore. 

Q. But the months they fish off your shores when they cannot fishon 
our shores, the wear and tear is greater than during the fishing months 
in the gulf?—A. For sails and rigging the wear and tear in the gulf is 
just as much as fishing on our shores. 

Q. How can that be ?—A. Because in the gulf you are using sails all | 
the time. 

Q. Take a vessel fishing mackerel in November off your coast, is not 
the wear and tear of that vessel much greater than that of a mackerel- 
fishing vessel in the bay in August ?—A. I believe there was a severe 
gale down your coast in August. 

Q. Take J uly ?—A. Off our coast in November I should say it was _ 
decidedly rougher. 

Q. Should you say that the wear aan tear of a vessel was decidedly 
greater on your coast ?—A. I should say it was somewhat greater. 4 

Q. You are not a practical fisherman now and have not been so for a 
great many years?—A. No. 

Q. ‘You have no practical interest in ascertaining the prices?—A. No. 


ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, . 2673 | 


Q. Since you were here on Friday you have made up a statement?dif- 
fering somewhat in principle and also in some of its details from that 
you submitted on Friday?—A. Yes. - 

Q. From whom did you get the statement that the fishing gear ofja 
vessel cost about $45?—A. I made it up from my own idea of the things, 
and when I sat down and enumerated them I found they amounted toa 
good deal more than I had stated. 

Q. The first statement you made was a hap-hazard one. Had you 
not taken the trouble to put down the items that made up $45 ?—A, I 
had not put down the items. I took the cost of a seiner in 1875, the 
fishing gear of which amounted to nearly $50. 

Q. Then you took it from the highest cost we have had before us yet? 
—A. No 

Q. Is if not the Centennial one ?—A. I allude to that one. 

Q. The cost of the vessel was submitted to the Centennial Commis- 
sioners?—A. Yes. 

Q. In this statement you make the cost much higher ?—A. I do. 

Q. Tell me who did you consult with regard to the articles and prices 
since Friday 7—A. I consulted myself as regards the articles. 

Q. Who did you consult with ?—A. I did not consult with any one. 

Q. You made that up without consultation ?—A. I made it up from 
my recollection of the articles which went on board of a vessel. 

_ Q. Do you mean to say you made it up without consulting any prac- 
tical man?—A. I do. I asked in regard to the prices. 

Q. Whom did you consult?—A. With a Gloucester man who fits 
vessels. ‘ 

Q. What is his name ?—A. Mr. Wonson. . 

_ Q. Of the prices, previous to consulting him, you had no knowledge?— 
_ A. [had knowledge of the prices in 1860, 1861, and 1862. 

_ Q. That was 14 years ago?—A. The basis on which Mr. Steele’s 

yoyages are made up is on an average for 19 years past. 

_« Q. What does this statement purport to be; is it the average of a 
number of years?—A. It is an average of 17 years on which the 
' yoyages of Mr. Steele’s vessels were based. 

i oN thought it explained the mackerel fishery at the present time?— 

. 0. 

Q. Have you got a price-list for each of the seventeen years the 
prices of which Mr. Wonson gave you ?—A. No. 

‘Q. He guessed the average price for seventeen years of each of those 
articles, or was: it arrived at by a comparison of actual figures?—A. I 
knew the prices of those articles, according to my recollection, in 1860, 
1861, and 1862. I compared the prices of those years with the prices 
| Row, to get at my estimate. 

- Q. I speak in regard-to your conversation with Mr. Wonson. Did he 
--Temember the prices of each of the articles during the seventeen 
_years?—A. Of course not. 

Q. Nor could you?—A. Of course not. ° 
Q. Therefore, if neither of you could recollect the prices, how could 
yor make up the statement ?—A. I made it up according to the best of 

/my judgment. 

Q. The value of that would consist in the means of knowing. You 
“ not possess price-lists for each year to ascertain the amount?!—A. 

| NO. 

Q. The second statement is $20 over the former statement?—A. Yes. 

Q. And that estimate was submitted to the Centennial Commis- 


168 F 


ead 


— — 


. 2674 ' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


sion 7--A. $50 for a seiner, not for a gulf fisherman. Mackerel lines 
were an expense, and I did not take any account of them in the seiner. 

Q. If you put half a dozen adze on board, will they not be any good 
at the end of the season ?——A. Yes, but they would not be worth so 
much, and they would not all come back. 

Q: "This statement is made up to the best of your judgment ?—A. Yes, 
I think you will find the facts warrant me in saying that it is far below 
the cost of those articles during seventeen years. 

q). It is fourteen years since you have been engaged in the business ?— 
A. [know that the prices since I left the business have been a great 
deal higher. 

Q. You cannot pretend to claim for your evidence on this point the 
same value as that of a practical man in business ?--A. Of course not. 

Q. You would not have known how to make up the statement excepy 
for Mr. Wonson ?—A. I would, except the prices. 

Q. You could not get the prices without Mr. Wonson ?—A. I could not 
get the prices to-day. I had the prices for 1860, 1861, and 1862 in my 
mind. 

Q. Those prices would not give you the average for seventeen 
years ?—A. It would give the commencement. 

Q. What was the price of buckets in 1872?—A. 25 cents apiece. 

Q. You put them down in the statement at $3 a dozen?—A. Yes. 

Q. This other statement you have made up is also different from the 
one you had put in?—A.. Yes. 

Q. Why did you make it different ?—A. Because that is the actual 
amount. 

Q. The expenditure on what vessel does a represent ?—A. It repre- 
sents any vessel. 

Q. It is not an actual representation of any given vessel 7?—A. Of 
course not. 

Q. It is a supposititious statement?—A. You may call it so. 

Q. I want to know whether you submit that to the Commission as a 
statement of actual expenditure incurred on a given vessel, or as a sup- 
posititious statement ?—A. Not for any given vessel, but I submit it as 
being, if anything, below the actual expenditure for any vessel running 
out of Gloucester. 

Q. What you suppose to be below 7—A. I think it is. 

@. You don’t pretend to submit it as having been copied out of the 
accounts of any vessel? —A. No; it cannot be done. 

Q. It was not taken from any given vessel ?—A. No. 

Q. Nor from any practical man’s accounts ?—A. No. 

Q. It was made up out of your own head ?—A. Yes, the same as any 
one estimating would make it up. 

Q. The vessel’s expense account which you submitted, you explained 
you know nothing about, buf that it was handed in by you from Mr. 
Procter ?—A. That is all. I know nothing about it. : 

Q. Mr. Procter was examined here?—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 


(J. Turn to page 375 of your evidence, and you will find the following 
under the head of Recapitulation: 


Trawl (UGE Aovcaaeac sy cses ee meee ele wee ares aweees: eave «+ enecuaueceipeaane $1, 023 25. 
‘Viesse) SOX POnse ACCOUNU <= <sceviccocwa coces pees waciscasbcccobeccesigecn=< 1, 823 88, 
ProvisiGUSiarG cieas coos oo omen ccccde ca ces ed cae ccaciececdeeaedtesres 1, 426 03 
Genoral chiargep:2, <<- quae ccna soos cnys =~ anihens -ceeavcass ssepesep apa sa'e 1, 135 50 


Total costolsUnning:. <eatsec simccstsncee noc den yeusteieanssa cube om ee 5, 408 63, 


ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ° - 2675 


Do I understand that is the exact annual charge of a vessel during 302 
days she was running ?—A. I do. 

Q. Under the miscellaneous charges, amounting to $1,135.50, there is 
an item, 200 tons ice, $600. Do you mean to say that a vessel engaged 
fishing will use 200 tons ice in 302 days?—A. Yes. 

Q. Can you sbow me in your trip-book any such cases? Turn up the 
Pharsalia—A. That was a Grand Bank trip after Grand Bank codfish. 
This is a trip after fresh halibut. The cases are not parallel. 

Q. Take a fresh-fish trawler and show mea consumption of 200 tons of 
ice in 302 days.—A. Here are the items for the schooner Marathon: 25 
tons of ice, April to May, 1874; 23 tons, May 6 to June 14; 28 tons, 
June 22 to July 31; 30 tons, August 4 to September 12; 15 tons, De- 
cember and January; total, 131 tons. Probably there are other vessels 
that had more. 

Q. That is the highest quantity you can find ?—A. No doubt I can 
find a parallel case to that in the statement, because it is common. It 
depends on how successful the vessel is in taking fish as to how much 
ice is used. It is not an extraordinary occurrence to use 200 tons of ice 
a year. 

By Mr. Davies: 
Q. I understood you to say that the abstracts you put in are correct ?— 
_ A. After I had prepared the abstracts, to make sure they were correct 


_ I spent almost as much time in verifying them as I had in making them 
out. They agree within four cents. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. In regard to bait used in mackerel-fishing ; I suppose the quantity 
of fish taken is not generally an exact indication of the quantity of bait 
-used?—A. No. Sometimes they will throw 50 or 75 barrels of bait and 
_ not get 20 barrels of mackerel. 

QQ. So it need excite no wonder that a good deal of bait had been used 
' with a small catch 7—A. No. 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2676 


.COTVKOA [OIOWOVUL ¥ JO JuomMOTII08 dey 

@ uy MMOGs A[IVOTO GLOW OA YOIYAL JO [[v ‘puny uvGdso puv MOpTA oY) IOF 49048 88017 OT} JO “Guo 10d ONO Jo YAINOJ-oUO pu ‘sont, TON} Duyn uy uoMAEYSYy ou} JO spay ony 
Joy saoddtu, ‘meq’ Zarpueyye sosuodxo oy} puv ‘yrVq ‘ool sv TONS ,‘sasModxo y00}8 , OY UO} ST POLYM Woy ,'Y0098 B8OIT, OGY POT[VO ST YOY¥O ,S[oRsOA ona Jo OU[BA BLOYA ONL, ,, 

‘Dayposoyovur puw Furqsy-poo ‘Aarqsy Jo pury Yous Joy Yous 809M 991g) LvoA YOuo—uosKOS O[OYA OY} JOJ s[os89A 04} DUNIQUN puy Fuy4y uy aueds oulyy OF 

Poppe og PlNoYs OLY} [VOONTppU SOOM XIg “UOsvOs OTT} Jo puo oy} 4¥ dn FZayney s0J 10 Furysy [otoyovar 1oy Fuyy You o1ojoq OU} FSU OF 1OF PotLIngod oYs [WWUN eFvAsOA 48.19 JOY 
UO polyes oYs omy og} Mou poop Mo OMIT [BNYOR OY} Sf , POLOTdMO OUIT}, OWT, ‘SAMOT[OF SV PoUlL[dxo, sf S[os8EA $,0[904g OZL00H Aq opuut sesuAoA oy so AavULUNDS CAGE O"uLs, 


a hiro sie er 1694 ou lox exo ili8-2 
G6 ‘ateaoay “Avo ‘s]O880A = ———— ‘Buy ‘30, ———lay 
#08894 ['G ‘OBBIGAY (Jaryyy ONLY, PT 89% F ; , peel Eee) Oth ; “IY CULT, CT 80T 
¥ EB |S OBT [PLT0G SET ‘BSC jb GST ‘OPT 6% Teh ‘BOB'I|L GE ‘1]9L LGB “GT 08 LOT ‘eh Epos ‘G86 BE les [£0 O6E ‘241/68 OOF/98 BES EOD) GbO ‘ee LOT [Lg 9BC ‘OOE|EG CTS 'E18|— G16 cor |-sa4 GT 
‘or (oor ler (9 oc0 ‘20 |3t 966 ‘IT (Te 9¢9 ‘co Cress se 119 180" |1% LT |9F 6£2'6 | Obs |S G9 R66 ‘9% [G3 LE8‘co |TT BL jor |** OLBT 
9'SL |9‘OL [6 (ae OFS ‘IE [32 KERR [Be OFS BL De craes he consl oe ieskic cee a (RE. Gr (PECTS EE |°OTR, 18 86 £59 ‘9B [hb L96 ‘09 [26 19 [6 | 7 SLBT 
9'°ST |8'OL [6 |8L L210 ‘ee |bO b2L'8 09 LOB ‘bL ee oney PUTTTETEST op OBE "E | (63 TT 6h 9L'8 | SOE ‘T |e LE 89 ‘66 |LL Sh9 ‘99 |S £9 |g |" PLBT 
tet |ror ja log 20 ‘be 1g 2906'S lof Rel ‘bL ae “yrererel"""16L £Bb 9 |B EL [19 906 ‘bT | Sep ‘T |p IL 669 ‘LG [69 16‘09 |IT 2g Jad" SLB 
T‘9T [BOL OT [68 929 ‘28 |1€ Lb0'9 |G0 10b ‘19 'T |PE 080 'E | R06 [ELL JS |e9 8909's |o S [29 198s |FeIL [6 98 Lbb‘€% 160 LGB ‘IG |6 9S |e |" BLBL 
TST 1$°6 |9 [9b BOB“AT [48 OSS 'S [PL GLE‘TH 9B Bh = JOL_ FOG 'b [BG Leb ‘6 | 9L0 116 HT fe [Tt ee alls oe 7 TTipteceeesde*9 "198 B69 ‘EL 168 8bB ‘Te |zT Se |g |*- 1LaT 
‘SE 16°6  |L {SB GPRS [10 GEO'R [IL PRLS [HE EG BL VIG "2 [TL SPO 'LT) GOL UBT LT |G [nnn pty te eeree testo eseees)ssseo-log gee ct 100 639 ‘98 |9s Le Ig | ‘+ OLBT 
‘SE |G°6 8 [LE £90 ‘PE [2B PBL ‘TT 96 O16 ‘6L [be 19 SUPE oS "188 86h 2 |€ 60 /L8 C&T '6T | sor 9 6b FOS ‘9% [60 LLL ‘09 [1B 8h |x * 698 
SPE |h'6 JOT 1b] HOO ‘LE GL 1226 [FG ORG PR [BB ER | weeeperseectererssteo"lh6 OLB 'S [OL LT TO Leb ‘EL |RSIL'T |G OG LE 'GE 16% EPS 'TL |9 99 Jor |°° 898I 
SPL |b jor [tt 0c ‘Le Jat bPL‘G |ee coLFS jor 28 £0 C&G Lb OLG'ST [61 bE LE L99 ‘ce ff9ee '% 6 L& OGh ‘1% bs O98 ‘8h 16 BS lot |°* LOBT. 
8'FL |b'6 01 [92 089 ‘9b |:% gE ‘TE IbL L890 ‘POT (ST 6L fees “7/6L LBL 9% [6 Eb |9G BOT '09 | b16'& OL — |L6 @G6 ‘6T |RT GLE ‘be |9 96 [6 | °* 99BE 
GbE 16 [8 jOL TAM Lb [3k 11S‘ [h9 Gee BOL fe Ty ease “"|66 296 SB |6 VE FG ETL ‘bS | Fors ‘b 8 £8 LOb ‘GS |00 SPL'Bh |b] 9B 2 | -* SOBE 
GPL |T'6 [8 |6T SELLE 66 961 ‘IT [ee orcs |r so oan ““168 010 ‘2% [G% LB JR ISL ‘es | 61e'b B YE GBL'ST [6b TTL ‘se |9 LE [a {°° FORT 
GOL | 6 (6 [8h 91% ‘6% |26 629'S  |b6 G90 ‘F ct 19 98 198 | TST [PBT B OE OPE'EL |b 0% |69 RL ‘8s | PS9'S 9 6 P8b ‘ST |6E OTh ‘bE |bT OE [6 |" E9BT 
BT | 6 |G [Sh OL ‘GT [31 fE%‘b [80 DOL ‘Eh = 1G OL 66 L9BT | 66% [LOG |B 08 GIL'h [OT HT |Lt Ev ‘OL |fOvE'T |g 2 OOF FL JE FL0'%E |B 6S |g |-* eOBT 
9'FT | 6 JIT |0 LOL‘bT |10 FOS ‘b [PO 8 Gee [08 18 Gh 18h 's |FeR9 [hI 9 |b [GL GOb'h [f GB [LB Ohh ‘OL | 608 'T |L £6 80L'8 [cL 686'6T |e co ig |** 1981 
GbE | ‘6 {IL JTL SBF ‘1G |36 9E0'G OF 8068 = |L 08 Te b68'9 F260 IHG 4 |e (GL BLT ‘6 [BT £6 (16 96% ‘0G | F998 ‘T (8 OL GLB'8 [RT 8x0 ‘1G |G Bb 6 |" O9BE 
S'bL | 6 OL [8S &8b ‘GT JIT B62 °S [0G GOL‘bh fas GL fo Tt pene Mere ae ““""|1h LGb OL J€L Gb 19 LeL bs | €26'T OL LT 9206 [6s LE0'C6 |6 fe |g |** 6SeT 
ST | 6 [8 [8h eS ‘21g! 12 Bhs ‘9S LO LOY ‘IHS CO [80 FOR = (BD ALES JOLT LRG STL ‘O1S/eS EF [LE ESL ‘Seg FOOL'S |g 78 GGL VS |R9 OLL ‘SISA TR |p | °° Bc8T 
“sq ‘90 “sq 80K ‘sq soy "sq “son 
Pett ee gn, = I eee a eae ee w4| a lbw 4 a | pilaow oo | @ ay 
e z gl acs | pas! 3 sa | ¢ g | 3 BIBS e E 5 BiPes| 28 3 2 28 
a $1 84% | gHs 4% 85 % 2 | o | & [Sel FB | ae 8 qa |BFo| 82 z 28 [55 
mo}] 2 ws Es ©, pe’ — 2, ag 2) Be = 4 = Br <p = =] of” 
og =} oi — aie % “4 _ chet = @ is) oO * =| oO ° n @® 4 om loa 
a & 20 3 a =m res w of o B ISa Ph wo 8 mA i=} Bed = om of jae 
=| em la es Se os BE 3 ay iS jog Be. on 28 Bs sre Bo of o8 IFS 
——| Es haS a hes B © br 4 o wo & a8 ay $f RE |oeo) mm a BS |23| -awox 
. ot Bea re tal ° 4 ote ee 4 { | Se as om 48 = Oe oe: mo = 
pokoid | 4 Beep $ 8s e 8 a @ |o&| “oe eS ies 25 le2"| wo Sy om (oe 
wo spuey | & Ca | Sd. s9 IS; PS g ~ | So B= S mr |e Saag “§ “o le 
————"| %| Fea |. F | &é ii ¢ BeytRe lm cg) Be) ee 2 | 22 |p 
. : ~ prt ° ge te ° SZ ° &e 
oom | ge | FS | 8 | BE g | & Pe |B) ye he Bl eae he 


{tow ‘onyea ‘yoy¥o Jo gunowe YAIA ‘AJOYSY [OLOYOVU OOUDIMBT “Ig Jo J[UH pus 
e104s UvoTIOMY pue ‘Sarqsy ynqiey puv poo uy posojdmoe omy Surmoys § 2281 OF SBT WOIy s[VIO} O[OYAA OY} WA0J posuopuod Uy FuyMons ‘sosvhoa SuyoSea0y Jo u0rye[nytdvoeyy | 


‘ajany eBoy fo sjassaa-Burysif ayy fq opow sabofion ayn fo fiunmuny 


2677 


GT PFS ‘ge 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


| .00 918 "68 ee 

sot 
3s y Z| eet aes 
& ot os ees BS 
23 8 [58 ee | 8e58 
BS g, g$| 2s5 RE oe 
Be $ |68| 8ée Aer 
g st Egas FEe 283 
4 & ag ae Bod 
ze D “Nee eFoa 


LO ChB ‘S 
0S 069 ‘%¢ 


*YO}wO JO ONTVA 


a 


‘aggT Jo Suyids uy plog 
| 
| 93 | te | GE STOLE | TT OO ‘BE 0s : 
emi a ee (nse at OG 088 | 0¢ G6 'T I aOR Macay a ean smensis edits Peete | |! | 
6L b 86 FRE T Ig SIL € 1 en (ae eT A eae nc 8S eee aCe eee 
OL b 00 106 ‘T LI poe ‘p b boa oes eke GRR Pret Seah Cieccrnee ing. 
6 b c9 160'E L& OG ‘9 (SE lira aan aia cae <r ie Shes Ee Oren Ee 
9% c 96 809 ‘T G9 GIF ‘ES b esa aes ener peach tans Sree b9RT 
IL £ 8& SOT & 09 9€ 'b WS ae aan on oe a kre ete ee 
ae sed ese eal Py Ree “| 83 OLE G LO 666 ¢ ; Sommnh (seas AGE Gt SENSE eA Ate a Se ee a 
¢ £ 0@ REL 08 L6L‘T Gg etal ath gira eh wee NES eels aR me al | fF 
pee ee BRT 1 eRRIETA oe AS CO 8L6‘T b CEES Re POT A Gr ene S ita agiahrriesaavaar eed | | F 
ee 2 G6 EPG £8 OLS Wi ee ae eae? ee eee eh ee bases en OROe 
GG b cS F66% 6E PIG ‘ss Wigerlees URC ar or ey rr ee icteric eass > - | 8 
‘sling | ‘soy “s0yT 
mut © wit ia 42 ae 
|} Bes | SBYE BSe 8 Ea EB ” 
285) 28% 6 BSes, 5 & Se 
§8s| eee | sree | S$ gf 
agn Sp ~ Bia mage ea “8189 X 
AL 42 = oe 3 e 
sue ag Seow £ ’ 3 , 
ites bbe 5 a3 fas 5 
BS Boo qs-. Bio ia} . . 
a TOs, wih pars wea —_—— 
CPL ‘Suypaaoyovm fg ‘Burysy spuvy Jo zoquinu oFvs0av ‘su0} §fp¢ ‘osvuuo0y,] : 
z ‘ ‘ Peay 


4 
(o) 
— 
NM 
TM 
_ 
= 
= 
fo) 
s) 
Db 
(=) 
a) 
se 
NM 
es 
Fy 
| 
se 
BH 
Fy 
° 
QA 
= 
3 
= 


2678 


88 6F3'S 


BO 8BL ‘b 


26 £60 ‘ek 


9S PLL ‘9 


06 008 ‘& 


09 OL9 ‘8 


®8 060 , 
90 695 'T$ 


OL 919 ‘T 
6 118g 


ery 


TL 886 ‘T 
LB GOL ‘I$ 


T& 186 '% ; 
GB LBL ‘ef 


£S 966 | 
GE EST 'T 


1G €1€'T 
GL LELg 


“OTUeS 04} 8, AVOID 
@lBys s8,[esso A 


“yoyo jo ont A 


“‘qYWsnvoToIayOVMI 
-9.10Ys JO sjolleg 


“£10489 [e109 
“Yow o10Ys avo 


‘LOM Ur oul, 


“OUIBS 8] S, MID 
S@ueys §,[asso4 


*yoyvo jo one A 


44 Snvo [e199 0VUL 
Aeq jo sjo1ieg 
“Sut 
-Y8y-]o19yovur 
‘9oU0IMe'T “39 
JO JUD Ul oury, 


“TUBS 0} §, A010 


Se1vgs 8§,[asso, 


98 TLP ‘lL 
BL B69 '% 


8S 9G8 ‘% 


ge 689 ‘I$ 


“Yoo jo one | 


nates sean wae cette teen eee ee ec cee ee eeeensQog7 


“‘Burysy INqiey 
pue poo ULeTLy, 


“1v0% 


['Suyjosoyovur spuvy cy ! Sayysy spuvy G ‘(Plo SU07 OG) 810} Gg yoge oFvuUOT,} 


"20RT ‘2% Arvnaqa,, ‘yuVg sos100yH uo pouopurqy 


‘oUpoLog LaUooYyos! 


2679 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


&9 SOL‘LT | S& 696 ‘OF FOP ‘E 9 TF. | Le pee ee. |-es tar ‘os jo"= 2178 Be en eee ear a peicsspeneceneaeseesescrsenk ices rae h esses IO 
filzssezeee* ere orcces | ie eee oo ek OO een” 16m Btn: | LOL 8 
6% 966 6& LOS 3 ject 9 & | oF 9e0‘e | Lo BbG‘L | LT 9 
GO €h8 16 she's {Feat rai © | 68 ceo'T | 82 48's | OT F 
IT 06'S =| 88 TEey's CLE wa <7 09 FOS ‘6 =| £0 186 ‘s rod € 
“sdtay % 
OF Ot ‘e =| 69 S69 = Fee 08 d : * | oe Te6'3 | FO GE‘D | OT & 
“sdtty & 
‘auon )| 16 90% | 80 Te9'9 | OFS afc € | et 2eL‘t | 909cL‘s |G ¢ 
be COl‘'S =| LS 806‘ | 8cF P : & | 9TSIS‘T | 98 TOF it b 
6 "S 1} G 
69 6FO'T | Ge Ties [feos 1B & | GL SPIT A oe a Sentra corte a a ae et Soe is dogaran *) 
18 186 bG 6sE'T —|_9GB II & | 90 £69 C9 ¢09'T 6S aia see baeeenes Lot ecwsscdene nese niece sanmec tes oo gases See sosen see lens eee 
bE EL 8¢ ORL‘T | FO9T 8 € | 00 €9L HL GLL‘T 6r PR cca eeihnainc! prema ser canes Snes esas an gnsseves eats Se=*> "2" 00RU 
L6 9L9 69 £69'T EGIL 06 : & | 86 So6 0% 1B 'G 1 Berd Biers se eter a ae eee e nna eae te gay: eee ete tt Sse PA ene 6S8T 
BC WI} G 
03 LOE ‘SG 16 606 ‘FS [Eese Il M : b | L6 e10'TS | 20 E15 '%S | LT Fos ipterseacesss 2 eSienewis/eeiine=os'=<si2 shisities rp occ eka RIAL EBS Joh 3) 
‘ “ , Ww rd . 
S ‘sing | ‘sow ‘sing  ‘soyy 
4 <4 4 8 4 3 Re, 
g Bp | ge | bees | we E Ee 
c 3 5 ae Pere 28 8 Pe , 
“ALOYSY [919 yoVUT : ro) ros i ° = ‘ 
e10ys UvOTOMy = a & 5 Bg a oe Fr os gia X 
=a $ 09 > Sag & » ° eS. 
os i" + Oo FS P o 
5 3 ro be “8 = S2 
: e 5 PSS 3 eB we 


——- 


[ot ‘Suyposoyovm spavy ‘6 ‘Surysy ynqiey puv poo poXojduio spuvy ‘soy QOT-GL 6S] 
“pppuniy Aauooyog 4° 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2680 


Vette tneeeeeecsseaneeseeeeereneseewenerers TBO T 


bS 8Ro | 6G 119 98 & I Bh PLE TIT | 96 G66 ‘23 | 1829'S | BB £6 | 28 OBE ‘LT | SE TS6 ‘88 | 9 19 


es wee ww www l ewww . ewer ewww lemme www wee leew ew mel emilee 16 618 ‘TL re Ibe ‘b bG 8 CTA I eT Sd sere Fee ee at eas Oy. 
eee teens eee enews seen Pee eee eee eee eee ee ee eee ee £9 oR0 ‘E 1c cre ‘L 8 6 eee wwe CLS Ri ee eae ere ke Shs SFY 9 
rescre Fe Gaara gear 89 £68 RE 1200'S | ET G &.| SB Shr's | G6 GE's : 9 ple aie aC Ey REI 5 ay Pom Pe ERE ETT de 
SA eee | rer 9b €9L'G =| BL EIL‘9 | 60S 6 6 | 19 91L'S | 89 BG8'¢ 1% : aces cee eee ee yy eur tre ohad tegen age ses SOOT 
sdtay OMT, 
eee ee ee) ee ee ee ee eee ee eee od eT CEL ‘a cL pee ‘Ss Cr % . #8 cle ‘TE 66 R66 'S I c eeeee I Re hae eh a a ekg 
bS 880% | 6G LID | 98 |G if 69 666‘'T | 88 1683 | LRG G T | OS GOL‘T | LL 266'E 13 G Rye ete ORE CIR. GOL Ea ERT Een eeee be tee ae ee OL 
SSS Ra) PGR rl ha al bahia 00 0L9 00 096 'T rata ¢ & | LT 9%6'T G6 LbL OL G Beaty cieeeoe MER Dee tomas iets are 
: a (Usb Coa Ui Jae 27 68 GOS | LIP LL 88S 98 9L6'L | 68 | & ese A aan ki a E Per peat i oe OSL 


I Cc 
sdiay OM, 
ee ee tad CLE cP Ors ‘T SLI L ¢ CB £E8 1c eRe ‘TE Te PTR REE R UEC O Re eee ee ee 098T 


ae och leat aed hts catered Miata de a a) G_ | £8 089 6 9SE'L | 8% 
a 1G | ih 6L$ =| PS ETL TS 6 OF 
sdtay Oa 

‘shoq| ‘sow ‘shpq| ‘sow 


se eceeeneeeeeees weccenseccccs ceneerrnssecenas ernest GagT 


eee twee ewe www ens lewwnns | sewanslsumens 080 ‘1% Be 9c ‘oe r1Z Danan senesen es Y= <¢0e6s:eemsn8 sees sesanwceeaesehs=<-anae 


*gI¥YS 8, [aSso 4 | 


| 


TL | 


“i008 
9109s 
I ew 


*81BOX 


yu 
“9IVYS § [E883 A 


“qoz¥o JO onTBA 
yy sued 
sje1req jo sequiny, | 

Q1BYS §,[e889A. 

*qo}vO JO ONlBA 
*£19qsy [e109 
-WOvur +=gouelMeT 

*y03¥0 JO On[vA 


*<r0qsy 3nqG 
“Wey pus poo uroairy, 


‘qysneo 
sjeiieq Jo Jequiny 
9S JO FH Ul ouLy 


[o19¥ovUr 
ueolew 


| 
| 
| 


| ‘Surporoyouur spuvy py {Zurysy ynqiysy puv poo spurvy ¢ ‘odvavay) 


“porT Lauooyoy 


—— 


i 


2681 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


+- . 
{ 
: 
0s s6e‘e =| FLL [LT |b EE GQG5OT |SGEFOTORPS] I Gea CLE ete o ae art hag Sooners a icine LN F 
ee ES teas hee teat SESE OVS RP Re) ee ei ces Ng bien are cue eae 
Beret eescon | vera) ree wel cae SE Ols S| MERE O. Ste ee ee oe se oe eee eee 
Santee meer iee es ese be BOG E. 1 pOG. ORG Ibe: Ihe aa aes ser Ria drier Min PELLET LaEC OS : «i! 
Bi ger cases eter Pen ae es CL OOE RO AON a SBC Nuke eee ee ee ae 
89 COLT | fs 6 b GE SIOT, [SOG GOGSC™ APOE! Ne [Ramee Serer ass tS SS ane ee eas 6E8I 
| *sdiay OAT, 
gla tctct 2 Wee crisne | Coen sribeeroas ric se Bb: O08 BL eel ‘S| HEL | 8 £ % FOE TS | 10 626% | 6 S Eso S seiner i Serres eo as sega eer os BeOL 
sing soz | ‘shivqd|\ ‘soyy ‘shnqg| ‘sojt 
1 
2 ee ea 5 t | Fl pet ie EB 
eS 5 5 oa 2, 5 aoe nD Bs 
3 8 3 Ee 8 A of ee g 5 ao 
Ey = rs a ; rs ° bo 
: eo iets : Be hey ee Ee . BS 
5 8 re ee 5 2 pe as 25 & AE “g.180 
4 ss on ~o 4 cs Sot mtg 28 s a9. Xx 
2 2 a Eb ot. ® ice = 5 fo Bo <7 ne 
; e 3c =5 : : Rg Be Bf : es 
a) Es sce oe ‘ = Be 
a ga 2 = 6B 4 ge 
a ae 8 ae 4 
3 3 elo Ee o : 
. 
[-Suyoroyouur spuvy er ‘Surysy spavy ¢ ‘ggst ‘zs oun Auoovy, yxvq Aq vos ye yuING ‘ plo ‘sUO} cB ynoq Vy] 
\ ‘ i 
‘obualnyy auooyog - amd 


i ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2682 


—— ™ ee 
> 
£T 86 9 66% tre | bs |""""""| 99 818'3 | Ge tec'o | Bers |G TT | 96 FLT '8 | Te cse‘et | Bt | OG [etter ead. Saree cas THOT, 
dd en ee ee ee “eee eee ist 663 ‘T 1X4 £S6 td LI r ee Rake \~T 3 Shee 14 
Beewesewer seers eewesionwwas|seewar|seawomel ewan eeeeee eoeecre serene we eeee se eee se mwee ray 6LS ‘3 fai p6s ‘S 0% 8 Cee ee ee meeuer sn ** "S005 
£1 86$ 9L GBS MSCBcicee ds oe: ici sesmiau ic cide sy as (os nile: Se EERO. TSB cGe Oy a GLoudeeml to asses rs bse eee eee 
eA A Seales iad cae eee ald Th $o2 Leois't =| tat jut le £6 FEB LL 86° | & ey ieee ei ge eaten alt 
‘diy oud ; 
Rete oe te ee ee ee ‘| egecr't | 80 en. | FIs |e. ls CULE TE. SF 206 6. PER eae ee tee ec seen ete? areata cata 
‘sda OM, 
tera Wakes has! Ss ated aaa "°°"! Sb LOS b8 GHG 'I$ | FIGT i If ‘ EG OSEIO: | COL0GF Se) EN tern Sacre ns aot nn Se aes roe eae 
‘diay ou 
shvq| sow ‘shoqg ‘soy ‘shnq| ‘sow 
——__-—___—__|—— ee eee foe seeeenl | eens 
A a ie 8 4 a ae | 4 4 4 
2 2 5 w B g 2 3 ee % E EB 
= 6 o & 8 g, é on 3 ee. é 6 re 
ad Pcs egies =) oe he & do BB eo = Be 
oe 8 o @ a8 a 8 re 8s =e 8 oe 
as ~ BS at a ot & = a ae ae Bg “S189 
Bo B ae tb. =e nS 8 ° a B ® 
Bs Be} ES B | Be e~ hg 
° a eo * BH oo 6 & 
g e| 78 q e| 3E g ao 
oO . 
o A é a ee a 2 


, 
4 


[PL ‘Surporoyovur £¢ ‘Surqsy-poo posojduo spuvy ‘og ynoqe osvuu0y) 
"plO8 puv VIO BAON OFUT pomMoy ‘ggBT ‘Es JsUTUV poysvus{(, 


‘UDUYyLDT "Us, sMeuooyoy 


o 
co = 
so 
; 
- 
V4} } 
io) 
a ; | | 
D ; “BLST ‘OT Aupy ooqond 
=I Ul plos [assoA ‘emmzjos Jo saTavgo puv sys00 jo yuomed ao posvoror pure ‘ZrgT ‘Avy [YUN dagen’) 4B pourejap !epvaYyH aoMO'T ‘puy[sy Jonbesvg vou ‘TLAT ‘pS ATUL Pezfeg » 
= a : 
. a 
e Tt 9L¢ T 699‘ ec r 8 60 G%8 ‘ST #3 LOS ‘Te | 989% | 3 Ih OF E99 ‘OT | OF FEES | LT 6£ | Th tae arene er nat ig ae) aera ee “" [ROL | 
atest camer sere rapes lez pepe ered luiene bern, V-Per PETE aa ae OE =a (Nn mere een rs ot j 
b jumecteaaceselncs sr Piecas kuna Meaelsoien| Whe ear ac ice oan | Punaclc necuey aura cat eeeucartenae daneevancear OLaT 
m 06 169 ‘T 90T 8 £ 08 gcc T 66 CLP & 9 Gels teen ue Gad be ke te naduictn te eaisiey on Toe irae ||| | 
{<a} LG £99 'T CR er eae i 7 Gh 66T a 96 689 & L Oo ie ae one eee PR Mai shh badan eee aes |} f 
jee] 68 £6%G C03 fh P Tl 966 1 ral S10 € 61 Ge Ae por enei ot eer eee hak eo Cre Ree a argh ay LOBE 
mM ee I8t ‘Lh COP ol I Ry 9¢ GILT £0 66° & 6 Sen Reece ne Soe ht ees SI aia 998T 
sd & 
me 00 OFF ‘GS 968 £ \¥ OL BGL 16 P82 ‘T 81 & Lr ee a oe cont ve wees te tae eee eeis |} | 
Q "sd11y & . ; 
GO SI ‘b | ese 1 1S £0 8113 =| F6 S19 | Lb Be Sy ear eae cman aioe a soece SS OLE peter, b9BT « 
) eS LAs ay ae ret eae re BE BLE GE GIL 6. ! eee soya Z a See Fit a Cee 
| Il ero 'T 663 RS td ee ee ee ed -- -- RR Ee TORT 
_ fr LO SIF tT FOL 9 | £ ee ere ee ee ece teh Ser enige wae sar he es Nee eee reer eee eee we ORL 
a sdi.y % 
G0 £66‘T | RST Le of & 10 89¢ GELLOR V9 ROE ce _ PerseceESESR eae Shanes ire el eaes eee 0981 
Q 08 80% ‘% 99T I P 86 £06— 9% 660 % 6% | Rs sie rer pomcben oem abate ae Foe ia SanG DEES ONE oF 6S8T 
fe £8 £h9 ‘TS | GFL 1% 6 TP LORS 88 S66 ‘I$ | LG Chee ie aa ea ee © Sf toast oe es SRE f 
4 sing) ‘soy ‘siivqg| soy 
A yi 4 wl 22H 4 4 eee a eee 4 S 
<j 2, He gee g p 4S =a| ne © Pp, Be. - 
g a ee Enzo e 5 re mero 3 8 oo 
o g 85 Ss a 28 an o ¢ Bad "s1¥0 X- 
So he n a 5 Boe o = th A 
: e-| EE E g | 88]. or 4 g 22 
"e| ga | 3 rg | Bes | 33 3 ge 
. Fe. ce = . 7. sa af - & fe ” 
[ Sayjoroyoum spavg pr {Suyysy spuvy 6) - ; ree ef 
a Pt ee ee 8 ke ele gg I $$$ i ed 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2684 


VL 086 'b 


RE Tb ‘IT 


OF 618 'T 
10 G68 'T 
16 £16 '% 


se eeeeeeee 
ewe ew ewns 


LE 8 


sane ewwwwe 


PS G8 's 
66 668 'G 
98 OFG ‘b 


£0 8s 


see www ewes 


66 961 


Bene wewwes 


69 LLOg 


09 OG9 ‘G6 


Rb BLE 'T 


$6 808 'T 


16 119, 
Lo 619 ‘T 
£0 819 8 
9B B18 'E 


18 O10 'f 
LE 606 'E 
CT SLE ‘TE 
LG £80 'T 
GL G90 '% 
8G 1G9'T 


Ov 199 ‘TR 


TL G09 ‘LG 


09 10F 'f 


'S 


| 
| 


| 
| "AIBqS § [98894 


"qoqeo JO ODTEA 


£ QUILT, 


. 


x }q4sn89 spar 
| -req jo 1oqunNT 
| -q8y [areqoem 
yu 


| 
eloqs ued 
-LIGa 


} 
| 


“9IBE §,]98S9 4. 


“YqQSNSI Stor 
-Feq Jo JoquUInNy 


"9B JO ODE A 


“A[QwOUT BOTTAOG » 


GF THL ‘08 | G6 S6B'LE | 16 cg 


69 GLE 'T | AG HIT'G | GB | Tt 
LL G8G'T | 90 BBE | GEO 


16 19h 'T 


£8 968 ‘T 
19 196 'T 
Re SCO 'S RE ORR 'D fy 
60 €oL ‘TL 1 8x ‘f or 


OS 816 ‘T Gh COG ‘Fb LI 
88 SEC 'L OS GOb'E 8B 


b 
£ 
09 OSL Ls 189 'T G b 
Lt 66G'E «| ET E483 | bE OL 8 
¢ 

b 


9B LO 'T | 90 LAL'G | BT 
£6 8L9'18 | 88 6E9'E$ | BT 


‘adiry % 


aL 


3 Eg 


U8 yereyoeur 
eoueIMeT “3g 
ur 2 
“OIBYS §,[eSso 4 
"a}¥9 JO one A 


Fo FaQ 
*f13qsy yng 
pie poo 


eee es ee ee www el ew wwe lew nne 
ae eene 


‘shod | ‘80 ‘shnq)| ‘sont 


eee eee eee eee ee 


ste be eee eeeneeeenesas ress eneeerecnesrereessQyar 


Ween ee acne eee ences eeenen eneceeemeaneanaes BOOT 


Wee ee sue een eee ewes eennaeaanee reser seasons QgE 


Seen ete e eee eee cence ee eeensseeeneesaneenl BORE 


Lene e enh ween stew eee e een neeee eens neneeeeeasngae 


Leet tee cece eter ene eneeeeseeeneenseeeneeees BODT 


feet e enna nets nena aces emenae ian nmmmeeree HOGT 


*BIVO A 


['Suyporo3z0uU spuvy gp ‘Bupysy spuvy ¢ '8u07 OOT-T Lg ‘oSvau07 MON] 


DAQUDY) Pp aUooyos’ 


ve 


2685 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


comes [roanie far fo 5 | won | ar ous fri ferefe fe oo | oo jenn [esseeseteseeseentecneesenee ae 
| Suyjosoyovur spuvy LT !8U07 OST noqy | 
‘09015 “QO DYJUDUDG LaU00YI, 
| 49 1663 | 96 £89 '9 | 969 | or | 6 
ee eee eee eee eee ee eee ee eee eee eee ee eee eee 2 13 C26 ‘T ch 9L6'E L6E 86 c -—- ee - AS CSP ETS eee OS Se ere Ae eeM en eee) ONT 
: ‘sd 119 
Cd ee ee ee pen ob 680 ‘TS £6 OS¢ ‘es 661 fi 13 |® Ce ee ee CAFE E Ss Res cee ON REESE Ee ACSC CS ENE SACRE 
[ Juyforoyovur spuvy LT ‘8U04 OST Jnoqy | 
*pno),) “18 dauooyoy 
eecesecsees eee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee od IP 9g6e €8 El ‘ee 6ST J 8 z eee eee ee eer eee) 6GRT 
shoqg | ‘soy C “SORT shoqg | ‘sony 
+ 4 A 4 < < 4 8 < < ae 
= ag SESB g e | as | Seee = Eg 
i 5 ae agee & g =e. gare 4 5 BS 
o g &5 ae) a S 8s ROS Se ° a5 saben 
@ 8 So LS w Bo a4Q 2, g a 
eo a E e. | SS esos E E 
3 +s Bos 4 8 eo me 2 5 32 
4 5 Poo . a A FS 2, ois 
|[‘Suyposoyoum spuvgq CT ‘S704 96 ynoqge ‘esvau0} pio) | # 


“LONOLT WLWAT LaUwo0oyoy - 


« 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2686 


Ch 'S 


896 ‘ST 668 ‘98 Ch8 LGO ‘sh | €L b3O'L6 | OT 901 


Egg 


we www ewe 


wm ween 


‘o1vys 
§, M4910 10 [aSsoA 


LGB 


samen e we wens 


| 


*qo}8d JO ONT A 


‘qysneo sper 


-1vq jo 1oqMUnyT 


‘shng 


“SOT 


LIS ‘9 
aLV SL GB 
OSS ‘L 3 

HIB ‘L 
900 ‘9 
O8b ‘b 
810 ‘L 


Gb 
9% 
99 
08 
6G 
ore) 
6L 
Ob 
ce 


eee crea c ue aoe coil eeias cee femnera| es a | SO GOBLG Lb BOL 'S b L POS eae ae racic oe na ware aoe penn ae 2a 
peewee Se we pea ence sleleisieiell eerie ciate meee ase sie eee 98 T18 ‘Pb 8% S PRM SARC c ra Reece sive se ese verse cre REE Se Ere Ne Oy 
Sterns ei miceee makes eae sae eer ee OO BELLS 9b 99 ‘8 Cp 6 
Soe Drea ig pe aac ee faut eae gare lactmeahaea IS ale ot) LI 600 ‘6 ol 6 
eee eee Coe Cee eee eee 6 

Rg. 

L 


eee eww ene 


Gt 


OL ‘€ 


soccer ceesecee nese cccewsersenscemesceensecsoes TORT 


o 

= 

- 

ws 

o 
POMOSOSMGTAL 


set leet teen cere es eee ee ene te reer ee erree reese eee Qagr 


> 
x 
ad 
us 
Q 
Sc 
+ 
a 
ol 
CRHVAQeSIwN 


= 


< 
i~] 
Q 
| § 


| 


“Sut 


“Ys jo1exovUr 


ued 
iL 


Ul om 


e10qs 
“Lau 


"0038 
§,[9889,4_ 
Pouwry | 


jou JO J]Vq-auo 


rf 


“Suva X 


qsg yuqiyey | 


| pue poo u 


“91VYS &, ABI 
*q93¥9 JO onTB A 
‘45089 S[eI 
-req jo 19quInyNT 
*y00}8 ssoid 

qoz8o JO on]BA | 


10 Q18YS §,[9889 4 


eaeys 
‘Sur 


‘Q0U01MBT 3S 
| JO J[OD Ur OULL 


-Ysy [oleyovuL 


| 
| 
| 
| 
} 


| 


{ 


IPL ‘Surposoyouw ‘Gg ‘Sarysy yuqyey puv poo spuvy Jo soquinu odvs0A Vy | 
—'SU0} NOT-P9 Bg fosvuU0Z MoU {sO} GG-G 0G ‘OSBUUOY P[O 


*)0LMDD Sap DY Lauooyoy = 


Server se - = & 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2687 


1 1s9't | Lo eR9's | SE :) 9 CIT ‘St | 66 HIE 'sh | BT'S |" BE= | ISOC SP: | RESPEC ROE he REE eet ee eee TOL 
tame ey hceens| ascoas eas: 6S B9S ‘9 fl | 6 
Terre ee eee eee eee eee tecoees 18 eee ‘R oL 8 
parce nal OS CATES eel ES ee EEC EOR TL 6€T ‘OL b 6 
Ss a| nee lean 6L O10 BL @ | «OL 
seh dk) Peete Ieektaa beac LO L6L ‘OL 66 | «OL 
phaser (eee eae ae ie GH ILL ‘L 8 #618 
ecvieatelal (eibemeal (eee IL Och ‘e rd a) 
4 a G8 LFS S b 
poet beds) rece te beasts CL 699 ‘b oT 
Sesce as piste aie re ay €1 180 ‘¢ SC We 
See SSeS Pe tces| soca s 8h OK 'T ie Va! 
oa per eee emer, G€ OST ‘8 td f 
See cents ferns £3 Ebb 'b 8 ¢ 
ora! eiciiee Nicest $6 206 ‘¢ % «1G 
eed (ete bray Of LEE ‘S TE | At 
e |t LG SHB 'E st | k 
cepa) ectabas eae Lb LOL‘e$ | ove | er | 9L POPS €¢ 190 ‘I$ Cae heli 
bata! 80] [etna son ‘sing | soy 
b < der 
= PS A ezoH 2 s 4a exaust Py S BE 
& e | 28) 4582 | § e | $8 | oe"e | & z es 
ha ‘4 _ -_ ae 
o 2 28 =e ao 2 85 5S a = te "$180 X 
2 ~~ Sos c2b J ° So a49 n ° 28. 
8 03, Fy op a 2 a Bas = ~ re 
B | Fel Bsa | 3 on oe ne é. Be 
& 5 et $ : 5 Boo ; ‘ Sa 
[ Suyjeroyowur spuvy cr {Suyysy spuvy OT “8104 OOT-6E Zo) 
‘punjoy sunmpn yy L2uooyos ‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2688 


#8 830‘ 


98¢ 


19 098 ‘TL 


GL ThS ‘9% 


6b0 ‘% 


T9 LGL ‘TS 


GL 810 ‘SIT 


OL 126 ‘1 
80 LoL I$ 


*eIvYs §,]9880 A. 


LO CLL '% 


‘0K 


& 16S ‘T 


06 OTL ‘% 
6b SB‘ 


90 £el ‘eg 


seem ww nne 


TS 0210 ‘b 


0S 910 ‘9 
C9 O6P ‘8 


£1 £96 ‘L$ 


se ewww nne 
rr 


Ore 


T6E 
bey 


b99 


L6 $96 ‘E 
LL Lch'g 
19 TL0 ‘¢ 
6L 81 'b 
GE 196 ‘€ 
LO LOT ‘€ 
90 128 
66 GLE ‘L 
9¢ £28 ‘9 
99 980 'E 


PT T9T‘e 
OL SLO ‘E 


¥6 T3L ‘I$ 


GB 988 ‘L 
60 801 ‘8 


86 SIT ‘L 
IL GbL‘L 


88 TIS ‘eg 


a om Sea Xe Maes 


Ss 
Ss 
8 
g 


pce ese ere te SST BIRO K TOO}ITILT, 


Cematdesincavacersenesvenbiacee nas xa= OLBT 
Fete ete eeeer eee ge ewes reer eeeeeeeee ror gr 
feeute een 
eee eerr 
SaTEIe erate le oie renee eer any 
BO OOS CELE: sete teen ween en: seeeeed OT 
teeter eect ene cert reer eeeene en eeerQ yay 
Wemisnm Wa St parses oaeie coisteleram ots +t eee9g0RT 
vette eee nee eee ee eee terete errr reece QQQT 


ahansuasseenscceces settee eeee seem eens gay 


sce ene ce nccececccccnwcccewcweensensaggnr 


ee ee ed ORE 7-5 | 


ee eee rit, 


“Yoyeo Jo one, 


‘qqsnvo sjar 
-Ieq jo Jaquinyy 


*Surqsy [e190 
-YOvUl e10Y4s8 TBO 


-L1OULY Ul ouwTy, 


“eIBYS §, [880 A 


*Yo}BO JO ONITVA 


‘qysned sjor 
-req jo JoqunN 


« 


4 


JO JOH Ul OUT 


“£410 


-ysy [aleyoeur 


eoueIMe'T 


"QIVYS 8,J98S9,A 


"qozeo Jo onTwA 


“A9qsy Nqryey 
pue poo ul eully, 


*81U0 X 


| Sulpoaoyovwm spuvg gt ‘Zurysypoo spuvy oT ‘eset9ay 


“aay adage Lawooyoy 


"S04 OOT-PS OL) 


w 7 
ss “ é 
| > | 
oO ? | 
<o 
N 
A 
(o) . 
= 
2 ‘ 
: : 
3 - | 
3 6b L06‘8 =| 46 989‘RT | COR'E | ST | 6r 6b 183 ‘0E | ce crS‘OL | 8 CB | pase ere he esas so eer sea cern cae eae eae a ae Sees s a2 ThIOL 
SII 1 I ERE) oar ele) bbe behets | eee ee 80% | 99 806'9 | & Deere rea nce eee oe anes cs ae ne cere gee Eta ay «nile atin ret OLRI 
= 86 6SL ‘T 08 cE6 ‘€ PGE eee 86 O8F'G | OF O8L‘G [°7""" Gr PSE SESSA Sere ncakh sor Seneeesasccgn see ces ss 5° se ken aac ee ese CLT 
- D passese* wees |sccccccccecs|-ce pocee | cccces)} cones rad org ‘s Q% CBF ‘8 rod 7 hee ee oe plgl 
| oF &9 FL9'T LL 908‘ | L8E 8 IF €L OST 'T 66 GOS OL CFP) tes ae hehe haar al pig Ng tera hia Rt iets tel Ik ELT 
a “9UON i" “sdiy % 
» 1 we cece co cess lec eee ccweces|scecewes| cocces| sceees 68 £69 ‘% PR LEI ‘9 6 8 ee Ow ewes ewes cece s Cece es PEO OEe tee ese eesecnces cweaEeseecesceses: GLAL 
» = ee ee LL RRP '% ge 6S6 ‘c see wee 6 ee ILRI 
= & ee eee tee wee wel ewww lew wenn PS Rcl‘s 2B OLG ‘L 61 8 Oe EEE RR EEE EEE EERE REE EET EEE EEE EHH OL&L 
5 69 166 18 861'S =| SET 03 =| 3 9¢ LEP 'S bP £66 ‘S b CF Paci cho a latidiatclth ere gl alata otat tonal a et abana tae nebataa | esi iah rina 69#1 
- fi, eww mee Cm mews nae wwe ltt wwe le ewes 16 Ol ‘¢ ra | oce It fod OL ee ROR 
; i) Lb ORE ‘T % 166‘ LB rh € FC OFS 'G Le LEG‘ Camm aie Sk ali kc alt ek a aca ae a cao LORI 
(| e: ber 3S | Te bee's | coe &% ‘ b ee ec8 ‘I$ | Le OL PS | OT Bae seers ee aoe SRS ata ee ome ana” aan Ce eee na OUR T 
sity % . 
is sho ‘soyy shvq| ‘sop 
5 4 4 < < ae —— = ee ns 
4 8B Be 
| © 2 4s ne g & 
a B | ¢ |e |ee"2 | € | € | = 
*aoqsy [e190 younr a ° Res = ° ef 
e1048 weoLlouy 2, 2 E 2 330 2, $ zs "s1VOX 
Pas =a 
3 8, Pg Bg m 5 S. op 
$ P ese ; af Re 
(‘scr ‘Sayers jowm spuvy * for ‘Surqsy spavy “OOT-0¢ gg ‘oSvauoy,) Pi dis 


2690 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


. = 
. 
£€ Le9'T | 1g scL‘e f8b | ¢ 9 Gh Bee ‘TT | 9F T9L'ss | see‘T | BT Or OF LOP ‘TS | SE OOT ‘LE | £3 Le Wee lansta iaeaa i enesee ele pec ea ne ta 2 Li A 
Re eaat ier ek A Ce ee wwe li mw ww wl eww wwe enmwwee QP TLS 18 L8G 'T 8. eeee eleeer er ewweee seesaw eseeseeeeesteseereeesenae eee eeee “LET 
€€ LEO ‘TS | 1S scx ‘eg PRP ¢ ee eS laos LE BLB A’ £8 LIT €€. & pa eae Ee ae ar ae oa IL80 
POR wes oll Ses ae oad Sie Soe Caan | a coe ea ah tite ae SS 668 £0 660 TL 6 OL erties 2) ae Las Seas eae A} S 
en ot ai (tar aan ciara (en eek lhe ch (tape iodeeae Ch 910 & 86 989 k 6£3, 9 & €8 608 & £6 86h 8 86 ¢ = gegen!) § 
eeeceeceaserizseenes eeeeesl|eaaane eace eaooeer Aoi yal Se ee eowerleeaee eeeeer 61 Lor b 8 9L9 ST 8 OL eeeeeeeeceose -""g908T 
See Pie ee meses | aera tutes eitcage Ben ee O s GL ZE9 ‘8B LOP 9T £ 66 #06 ‘%$ | S¢ Eg¢ ‘9s Gs b Ee On Po ee ae et ee OE 
ein F one eee eeee wel | es CM ges | See a Gh POG ‘b$ 9L 10S ‘6$ 919 0% P ial hed Sci Thy (lic tices rete ule ckoM a oe eee ee 2S ae 5 sialaet Nanaia 3222 {908E 
‘shnq | ‘sont ‘shod | ‘soy shnq | ‘soy 
ie 

ge 2 | Hl ee? | 2] 2 Ot Bl ap? | fo | #1 

23 e B BS o 8 a B aks @ =] 5 

42 ® ea o3 ® ® S oe ie g, ® Sie 

ig a g A 4 =] Bo cA g 5 aS 5. ao g, a8 

Ew g 99,2 b .™ $ 7, Be Q = S PS “s1vo x 

oe = =a B o 2 aa Bos © © = 

=) ° oa 8 oa =: ct Rm 1 st mp 

& 5 = ee 5o © 5 aba ee yo © o eS 

Be a| &e Hl F | &a me 

ge | 38 & ro 2 


[OL81 ‘Wouvyy ‘spurey [Te YB YUvG puvay uo yoy 


‘9, ‘SUlpotoyovur { [T ‘durysy spuvy osvioay 


‘noug UNYUvLy Lawooyogy 


80} OOI-PE 99 OSBauOy | 


J a 


2691 


} 
7 ; 
> 
4 
Pets pe oe betes Le LL Ob} «=| HI SBL‘OL | SIT‘T | FT | SE | FB EIS ’ST | BO HOLE | ET | en (gam ame a al aS ill 
Reataias veka) Meme oteannaroniced picket del Nabe (eben 8 LCO'T | 60 OIF '% | 18% Shy vies LO 8Le‘T | 06 T6c‘e | BI | ¢ Kas a ite hs ate ear ae oa are icky ta ee A] 
Pee ee ee eC SCE See ee eee eee co bs 'T 99 EES Cc 9BB 18 3 LO B19 'B 98 P30 ‘y £ c ASS Se OLRAS USS SET ES SOS 85 OSS 5 CRA ene OLE 
Ce ee eee ee rag CEI T cR GRL hat eer 0% ¥ re ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee eee) ee PLAT 
st | big ers eerie! Uakcaricket latent 96 F293 BS 8h0 TF | SB bT ji| Tt PLESOG CS UIGDPIOCRAC RE |, 02. Rese eee eee eae ee cee ne pe EL8T 
mee ew wees ls esse sees wes| ce mans| se ewes| we mees | cee ener meet | ime eewenseesiseeneane erase wl ew wwwe 68 gs ‘28 OF L66 ‘STS 91 Or ee er Peer eeee eee eee eee eee SLET 
sind | ‘sopr shin | ‘soy ‘shivq ‘soyy 
< < A 8 < < a 4 < < 4 
- g| Bee - & | SPs e E 
©, ® Pa 3° 3 26 5 ae 
or a |88| 3%¢ or 2, gf pre a g | && 
- * @ @ . 
=e > 5 g Re, Bs = g Be $180 X 
¢ 5 @ a ars . a a BE F, 
ia aes *E 
& 38 é aid EB 
(ELST ‘bG QenTnY ‘spuLsy uopUpIUAL yu orogsy yuo A, “Sayjoroyovur spuvy LT ‘Sayqey spuvy 11 “8u0} 0OT-98 G9) : ‘a 
‘OBPLIPLT 490NO teUooYs , = eit tie 


Of LELS OF POL ‘I$ 961 61 | aa haps seo eel eae figs Sy (are al (ORE | RE ioe ears me cae tga al Sch i Tiel 9LBT 


[‘spuvy 11 ‘Durporoyovy_ “8004 69) 


UND ISIUD > LAUOOYY 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


a6 Te1'S «| 60 OV8‘b «| Fe89 «=| &@ Od G 13 OGL ‘GT | 69 £90 ‘FE 
OE AR cae ed a LG g13‘e | So £86 ‘9 
Se cas bears bree ge £& £00 ‘v 10 169 ‘8 
we | et |e IL 896 ‘b | bL GBL ‘OT 
: Seen “|e lee 4 « 99 095 ‘€$ | 6% 099 ‘L$ 
SO CES Tee eRe OOOKCey ePOSE & LOL m(e0), a) | os sar tees (ieee ee eee 
‘shinqd| ‘sont 
; 8 
a 5 Be | eng a é. Be 
4 FI 0,8 aes & A A 
—_ @o aoa a <A 2; oO oe 
s g, go | Bae a 8, es 
*ALOYSY [OLOYOVU O1OYS UBOLLOULY B, ¢ =o ES a B. 8 298 *S1VOX 
F = Bo | mye 5 S Ee 
s B che] cy $ a 5 
E'S 8 n mB 
ay WF ce a ee 


2692 


[‘syuvg puvry uo Sarysypoo spuvy SL {Suyporoyovur 0% ‘spuvyy “804 YOT-9% EL ‘odvUUOT,} 
(‘GL8T Uy FUSING) 
unjpdway yybiuy sawooyog 


2693 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ai 
sz 
| se wccecccecs | ee cceccccccc|eccncces | secces|ocececs | 66 Tes ‘ee | GF C0% "1g | OL | OL | errr rrrrr rr Terre re eee ee eee ee ee eee ee secvescooqray 
(Sanysy ‘ty ‘spavyzy 80} OOT-89 TL ‘oduuUOT,) 
(‘CLgT ‘toquTedeq ‘AAO N) ; 
"ysnowmuUopy Lauooyos 
fremos [eoaws [sor [or |e fore a Jovesefececececececnteetereenenee ous 
[‘spuvy gf ‘Suroroyouyy *8U04 OOT-OL 18) 
(‘OL8T Uy AON) 
#5: ‘upIUNG “PF “FT Hawooyoy 
| 80 S116 | 86 c06'F | FEE or |9 6S 106‘8 | 98 CIE 6T | 15 | 03 
“11 0c% 00 £18 e9 Pr .[28 GROSE T- [.PBSe Ob OW. Wiitee soso sae cee ner ook eee oo eae Le 
16 B98 'TS | BE B6O'FS | 99% be 13 £6 PEG =| Se OES'S «| & Ge Gliisor cae oo te nas oe mae ceca GLa 
| drag oud 
ewe ew ewe www wee wees ee | ee eeees| ceeas|oeaces 18 LPI ‘bs 69 ces ‘68 z ial Bigs SAR ene SOLO Ae eR SS TKS eS = NOR ines ARR ees Sed as LOT 
‘shiv | ‘soy ‘shin | ‘soyy 
4 4 y 4 y y 4 
ie] S > @ iy ® gz = 
i e | ga | 388 i : EB: 
a 3 “8 ) eae S By 
“AlOYSP [OOyovul odoys uvowiouwry 2, ¢ 2 pa Qa 2, Fh os *g1v0 X 
5 8, eg | age 5 3 23 
a BE oe . Be 4 Ss o 
F oe is ESE 
a DF ce aa" 
(Suyosoyoum spuvy ct ‘durysy spuvy TL ‘OOT-eF 89 ‘os¥uUOT] 
(‘E18 ‘toqm900q7 “AO N) 
MOUIODAE TT MOUCOMIE, . ~—s 


ic 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2694 


ee fnveees a Jefe [errs [sess ees reewe feo smens fas 1 [vsstseeseeeentnene eee 
[‘MAnjor JOU PIP puL ‘9L8T ‘BI INdy sed1004) oJ polieg “Surqsypoo spuvy 6 *8U0} 0OT-96 PL] 
“phony sauooyoy 
06 OFE$ 08 bass rae) & 6 T 63 98h ‘I$ | BL PEL ‘sh | 66E GB evens se SS S291] ares se eae ere aie | eae eae eaanee carey oa acts ee eae Pe ee neces sinc rees GLET 
‘shvq | ‘soy ‘admys 24Dq |'shing’ | ‘soy ‘shvqg | ‘sow 
4 < A ie] 4 ‘<4 ‘A 7] < < iz] 
3 ® |3e| ween | 2 » | ge | sane | 3 e EE 
Cte ee lee meee | ok | ee Be beers | $1 | gs 
. 2, $8 eB a g, g8 aN a g = save 
z 8 BS | gob e g a e432 & g a3 
: S | Fe | peg E z Pe ead F 3 Be 
3 Foe E 5 8 2 a 
[‘equg jo 4ysvoo uo ‘gzay ‘Auwnuve ysoy =, "eL0S YO,, spuvy OT ‘J(u ul Suyporoyovm spuvy GL *8U0} OOT-6F OL) 
‘aaag 9b.10a4 wauooyog 
¢9 680 ‘i¢ | 6& PLS ‘ot | £26 PL € “eee Sawa eeerl ewww een ewe | -eewne | sewn | ee See er eee  OLat 
[‘spuvy g~ ‘S40 OOT-F6 96] 


(‘9L81 Uy AON) 
“yoo Yynowh, 7 wauooyoy 


2695 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


‘pouanqos 19AouU puv ‘cat ‘c] 19qmozdeg syuNg 11904804, JOJ poplVg 


| so aaea pester | 7 SP eae LL GF6 ‘TS | 0G 1ab ‘FS | SB Gy Sect e oe) ese oe wae ode Mare eine tee bs SL8I 
[‘Zurqsgpoo spuvy ZE *8204 0OT-96 92] 
‘DYvSLDYT Aauooyoy 
‘syueg OAvy BT 0 ‘gr gt ‘c% OQUIBAON 4SO'T 
£0 166‘€ | 60 Fess | LOOT | ST | 2 ESMTOL ET LOG CSh 0G: TG m [eEGient lie cos kg geese one gs rac. ov epee Te70L 
ore Rte cen oe so sas cae Pe oss APs te aes Does 91 8FE'S | SO BSL ‘s 13 L Doe RSS een oe te uk St” ae ae +o Oe eae OL 
pies ahe ts cima | eae aes neh Mea aceaas Vsecames| MS ies ea 8L 690 F £6 C8T ‘6 & Bir lh ny oe ears eke Pee eae Cr ak ee GLEE 
o¢ FE J 6€ F8I £ T6P GS € OL 661 & 9S $66 ‘b 8 Fe ee eee PRR Se cen po ee en eer PEst 
€¢S 986 ‘GS | OL 6F9‘Ss | OIG &@ £ 69 IPP & 88 8hL ‘L 6% Be a ae ie cae Cea ae ELEL 
Ronis vac Wate baa ce ake beat tis bie! ii “"""| 038 GIL'I$ | 6 008% | T 9 CS Se Tt tar raat 5, oR ce se aaa nd ee 
shinqg | ‘song ‘shod | “soyy 
a 
“ Ps a ons _ s Pad 
& 5 8 ge @ Ss = 
2 ® ot Pes © Cc) e® 
o 2 eg 5 oF 2 ay 
“Aroysy [ele Hovur o10ys uvollowy 2, $ ie 2 ae 2 2, we “8180 
> a ox 2 i) 
o 
3 & | "E | Pee Z 5, ae 
. a Fs b sn) 
J ee “Bp 
a I ge Bs 


[ ¥1 ‘Suayporoyoumr spavy ‘or ‘Surysy spuvy osvioay *8u0} YOT-LE 09] 
‘apag papnoyyT squooyoy 


2696 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. 59. 
TUESDAY, October 16, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


ELIPHALET W. FRENCH, of Eastport, Me., fish merchant, called on 
behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. You are a native of Eastport, I believe ?—Answer. I am. 

Q. What age are you?—A. Forty-one years. 

Q. In what business are you engaged ?—A. In the wholesale fish bus- 
iness and fitting out. 

@. How long have you been engaged in it?—A. Twenty years. 

Q. As in business for yourself, or as clerk, or how 7—A. I have been 


in business for myself nineteen years last February; previous to that I | 


was in a store with my father. 

Q. What was your father’s business ?—A. He followed the same busi- 
ness. 

Q. How long did he follow it?—A. Nearly forty years. 

@. So the firm of which you are a member now, and which you rep- 
resent, and the business in which your father was previously, extend 
over how many years ?—A. Something like sixty years in the same busi- 
ness, 

Q. Will you explain to the Commission what the business is ?—A. 
Buying and selling fish and fitting fishermen. 

Q. Buying fish whereabouts, as a general rule?—A. From fishermen. 

Q. From fishermen, where ?—A. At Grand Manan, Deer Island, Cam- 
pobello, Indian Island, and Beaver Harbor. 

Q. Is it a matter of necessity in your business that you should have 
a pretty good knowledge of the fishing at those places 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You make or lose money according to the completeness and pre- 
cision of your knowledge of that fishery ?—A.. Yes. 

Q. What is the fishery at Grand Manan and the Bay of Fundy gen- 
erally ?—A. Codfish, pollock, hake, haddock, and herring. 

Q. Are any of those fisheries entirely off-shore fisheries 7—A. Codfish 
is an off-shore fishery. Hake are taken off shore. 

Q. Entirely or partially ?—A. Hake are entirely taken off shore now. 

Q. Was it once an inshore fishery ?—A. Yes; it is only within three 
or four years they have been taken off shore. 

Q. Before that it was inshore ?—A. Inshore and out, both. 

Q. How about haddock ?—A., Haddock is mostly an inshore fishery. 

Q. Herring, of course, is an inshore fishery ?—A. Partly. 

Q. Into what divisions do you mark the herring fishery ?—A. There 
are smoked, pickled, and frozen herring. 

Q. With regard to smoked herring, where is the market for smoked 
herring that come from the Bay of Fundy, Grand Manan, and the isl- 
ands of the mainland ?—A. Boston and New York, principally. 

Q. Are they sent to Boston and New York from Eastport, or do many 
go direct ?—A. They send most of them to Eastport. They are brought 
there in boats, and sent from there in steamers and sailing vessels. At 
Grand Manan they have three or four large vessels by which they ship 
them to Boston and New York direct. 

Q. Are those American vessels or Grand Manan vessels owned by 
Grand Manan people ?—A. I know one that is chartered isan American 
vessel, because it is my own vessel. I don’t know in regard to others. 

Q. Do they ship on account of Americans, or do they charter the ves- 
sels 7?—A. They are chartered by Grand Manan people. 


oe 


: 


ia : 
oa 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2697 


Q. Have you any idea of what is the value of the smoked-herring 
business at Grand Manan ?—A. I should place it at about $400,000. 

Q. Do you know by whom that fishery is conducted ?—A, It is con- 
ducted by the inhabitants of Grand Manan. 

Q. Entirely ?—A. Almost entirely. I understand there is a man at 
Eastport who owns part of a weir over there, or has an interest in some 
way in weirs there. 

Q. But, as a general thing, it is emphatically a native fishery 7—A. 
Yes. 

Q. With regard to the frozen herring, is that the same ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any idea of the value of the frozen-herring fishery of 
Grand Manan ?—A. I think about $40,000. 

Q. Is that exclusively a native fishery, or do Americans go and par- 


_ ticipate in it?—A. Very few Americans do. Some small vessels at Kast- 


port go over there. 

Q. How many ?—A. Perhaps half a dozen. 

Q. Can you form any idea as to what proportion the value of their 
catch bears to the $40,000 you have mentioned ?—A. It would be a very 
small part, because Grand Manan owns perbaps twice as many vessels 
as the Eastport people, and there are vessels at Campobello, Wilson’s 
Beach, and Deer Island. 

Q. As to the pickled-herring fishery, is that a special business, and 
is it valuable ?—A. It is not so valuable as the others. 

Q. Is that conducted in the same way ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are Americans engaged in catching and smoking herring on our 
own coast ?—A. Yes. : 

Q. To any large extent?—A. Yes. 

. Do you know what is the value of the Maine coast smoked-herring 
fishery by American fishermen ?—A. No; but from the number of weirs, 
I should think there are as many herring smoked on the coast of Maine 
as on the English side. 

Q. Do the herring smoked on the American side equal the British her- 
ring in quality and bring as much in the market ?—A. Yes; there is one 
particular place at the town of Cutler and another at Manleybridge, 
farther on the coast of Maine. Manleybridge herring bring a better 

rice than any other herring shipped to Boston and New York. Man- 
eybridge is near Mount Desert. 
- Q. Now, with regard to the remaining fisheries—cod, hake, and had- 
ock. The cod fishery, you say, is an off-shore fishery 7?—A. Yes. 
Q. Is the hake fishery an American or English fishery 7—A. It is an 


English fishery. 


Q. Is it both ?—A. It is almost entirely English. Those few vessels 
I spoke of go over there hake fishing. 
_ Q. What is your estimate of the hake fishery? Do you deal very 
much in hake ?—A. Yes; I dealin them. I should think there might 


have been 25,000 quintals taken this season. 


Q. The large majority of those would be taken by British fishermen 


_and in British waters ?—A. Yes. The boats fish near the shore, but the 


vessels all fish outside. 
Q. Is the bulk of the fish taken outside, and is it considered to be an 


- outside fishery ?—A. I think it has been for the last two or three years. 


Q. With regard to haddock, how is that ?—A. It is taken inshore 
and ont, both. 
_ Q. Then with regard to the fisheries of the county of Charlotte, you 
know pretty much what their extent is, do you not —A. Yes. 
_ Q. What do you estimate as the value of the whole fisheries of the 


2698 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


county ?—A. I should say the fishery at Campobello, Deer Island, and 
Indian Island would be about equal in value to what it is at Grand Ma- 
nan. Up the north shore I don’t know so much about; it is not to that 
extent; it may be half what it is at Grand Manan. I should think 
$1,000,000 would cover the whole of the fishery. 

Q. With your knowledge of that fishery and your dealings with the 
fishermen, and the necessity of knowing what the catch is, would you 
say that any appreciable portion is caught by American fishermen ?—A, 
No; I should consider it an English fishery. 

Q. Would you consider there was any possibility for the catch made 
by American fishermen to be so large as to equal that amounting to 
$1,000,000 caught by British fishermen ?—A. No; by no means. 

Q. Is it possible that such a state of things should exist without you 
being acquainted with it ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know Mr. James McLean ?—A. I know bim by sight. 

Q. Do you know where he carries on business ?—A. The firm does 
business at Letite and Lepreau. 

Q@. I want to call your attention to some of his testimony with regard 
to his estimates of the fishery of Charlotte County, and ask whether 
you think it correct, and, if not, how it should be reduced. The follow- 
ing is from Mr. McLean’s testimony : 

Q. Judging from your practical knowledge of the fishery, being an owner of fish- 
ing-vessels and dealing with the men who fish as you do, what do you say, at a low 
figure, would be the value of the fisheries and the actual worth of the fish caught by 
British subjects between the points you mention, from Lepreau to Letite? What 
would be a fair average value from 1871?—A. I should estimate the quantity for 
Charlotte County and the adjoining islands. Weall fish; and it would be difficult to 
separate the two. 

Q. You are acquainted with the catch of the island as well?—A. Yes. I visit Grand 
Manan Island occasionally, and the adjoining islands often. 


Q. What is the catch of the whole?—A. A low estimate for our fishery would be 
$1,000,000 for each year. 


That is about the estimate you made just now ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Then there is the following: 


Q. For British subjects?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is a low estimate 7—A. Yes; I think I am under the mark; in fact. I have 
no doubt of it all. 

Q. And it may be a good deal more ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have not a shadow of a doubt that it is at least a million?—A. No. 

Q. And our American friends take a considerable amount more ?—A. They take as 


many. sf 


Q. They have more men and more vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And they take at least as much ?—A. Yes; fully as much as we do, if not 
more. 

Q. Have you any doubt that they do take more?—A. I believe that they take 
more. 

Q. You have no doubt of it?—A. No. é 

Q. That would make a million dollars’ worth taken by them ?—A. They must takea 
million dollars’ worth. 

Q. That isthe very least calculation ?—A. Yes ; I put it down as low as possible, to 
‘be safe and sure. 


Q. They take at least as much as we do 1A. I believe that they take more, and — 


they take as much any way. 

Q. The American catch, as well as our own, on which you place an estimate of a 
million dollars in value, is taken within three miles of the shore —A. Yes; I am 
confining myself to within the 3-mile limit. 


Are you in a position to say whether that is true or not ?—A. I don’t 


think it is true. I think he has made a mistake. a 


Q. Do you think your business is such that you would know the fact 
if it was so?—A. Yes. 


——————————— 


- eat 


<> a 


daa tans oh tt 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2699 


Q. That there could not be two million dollars’ worth caught instead 
of one million without you knowing it in your business ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If it is so, that would make a very good business for the merchants 
in Eastport, if they deal entirely with Grand Manan ?—A. Yes; Campo- 
bello, Deer Island, and Grand Manan. 

Q. What is the condition of things? Is it such as to indicate very 
large profits to the fishermen ?—A. No. 

Q. What is the reason ?—A. There is not much money in the fishery. 

Q. To the Eastport people, you mean ?—A. Yes; and I have suffered 


_ aloss by it; that is, in the fitting-out part, I mean. 


Q. What do you say to this: 


Q. Along the coast of Maine, say from Eastport westward, there lives a large popula- 
tion who fish entirely in our waters?—A. Yes. They come from Lubec, Perry, Pem- 
broke, and Eastport, and along by Cutler and westward of Lubec, and still farther 
_ away than that. 

Q. And from Machias ?—A. I think so. 
Q. They all come and fish in our waters ?—A. Yes. 
Q. And not in their own waters ?—A. I do not know of any fishing within the three- 


_ mile limit in their waters. 


ry Within three miles of their coast there is no fishing of which you are aware 7— 
es. 

Q. And this is a population that lives by fishing alone?—A. From Eastport and 
along there they follow fishing for a livelihood, beyond question. 

Q. So that a large body of American fishermen gain their whole livelihood in our 
waters ?7—A. Yes; those that fish there do. 

A. That is not so. 

Q. State to the Commission what yéu know of the habits of those 
people.—A. It speaks of the people being engaged in fishing only. 
They are engaged in farming mostly; that is really their business, but 
they carry on both fishing and farming. There are only one or two or 


_ three or four vessels owned at Lubec, one or two at Machias, and one at 
| Jonesport, that come down there. 


Q. I find this, also, in Mr. McLean’s testimony, speaking about St. 
| Andrew’s: 
_ Q. It is sometimes called the Inner Bay of Passamaquoddy ?—A. I suppose that it is. 
Q. Was not that at one time a great herring-ground?—A. It was once a splendid 


| fishing-ground. 


Q. Since the negotiation of the Washington Treaty, and since the Americans have 


| 
_ | fished there, what has become of it ?—A. It has been destroyed within the last two 


years. It is now no good whatever. 

Q. How did the Americans destroy it?—A. By bringing too many vessels there, and 
' by setting too many nets. The water is quite rough there at times, the wind blowing 
) heavily in from the northwest. Northwest winds prevail in winter, and three years 
| ago we had a very hard winter. 
| Do you know anything of the destruction of fish in St. Andrew’s Bay ?— 
}A. No. 
Q. You know something about the fishing there?—A. Yes; I know 
‘there are as many herring taken there as there ever were. A year ago 
last spring the catch was unusually large. 
| Q. He says there is no fishing within three miles of the American 
‘shore ; do you know of any fishing done not ouly by Americans but by 
‘English fishermen on the American shore ?—A. The best fishing in St. 
|Andrew’s Bay is on the American side, from Dog Island, on Eastport, 
to Lowerin’s Cove, in Perry. There are other places of course, on the 
American shore. Tiere are herring taken at Cross Island, near Machias, 
and Libby Island, at the mouth of Machias River. 

Q. Do you know any fishing-vessels engaged fishing within the three 

miles of the American shore ?—A. All vessels from the other side fish 

n St. Andrew’s Bay on the American side. 


2700 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Do you know Walter B. McLaughlin ?—A. Only by reputation as 
keeper of a light-house. 

Q. I want to call your attention to his testimony. There is the fol- 
lowing: 

Q. Now, in the spring are you not visited by the Grand Manan fleet from Gloucés- 
ter ?—A. Yes; they used formerly to come to Grand Manan direct. Generally now 
they go to Eastport and get the Eastport people to catch bait for them. 

@. When you say “formerly,” do you mean after the Treaty of Washington ?—A, — 
Yes; they did not come before that much. It is since 1871 that they have come prin- 
cipally. They will come down every spring. 

Q. How long do they last ?—A. Sometimes a longer and sometimes a shorter time. 

@. How many years after the treaty did it commence ?—A. It has lasted down to the 
present time, for that matter. There has not been so many this last spring as before. 

Q. I thought you said there ha’ been a change in the practice ?—A. There has not 
been a change in the practice.of getting bait at our places, but in the mode of getting 
it. They generally come to Eastport and make that their place of departure. The 
Eastport people are acquainted with our waters almost as well as our own people, and 
_ they come across and catch fish and sell to the Gloucester fishermen; that is the ma- 
ority of the cases now. 

Q. I understand that at first they came down themselves and bought ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And now they come chiefly to Eastport to employ Eastport fishermen, who catch 
the fish and bring them to them ?—A. The big vessels are not fitted out for herring 
fishing. They take an Eastport vessel in company with them and come over and an- 
chor in our waters. They bring their own fishermen with them and anchor in our 
waters, and get their bait there. They sometimes come in the fall for bait. 


What do you know about that ?—A. I know that it is not so. Ihave 
seen 40 vessels from Gloucester lying in the harbor of Eastport for bait, 
and the boats would bring the ,bait from the other side, and would bait 
them up. 

Q. The boats would come from Grand Manan ?—A. From Campobello 
and Deer Island. When I speak of the other side I mean the British 
Islands. 

Q. There is also the following: 


Q. You are well acquainted with the fisheries of Charlotte County. Take the main- 
land fishing from Letete as far as Lepreau, is that a good fishing-ground ?—A. It is 
considered a good fishing-ground ; I am not personally acquainted with it, and can only 
say from what I have heard; my duties have never carried me there. 

Q. But your practical knowledge extends there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What would be the value of the mainland fishery, the British fishery alone, bagi 
it from Letete to Lepreaux ?—A. My own fishery is, say, $500,000; Campobello an 
West Isles must equal mine, and the mainland will certainly be more than half of that, 
if not equal to it. 

Q. Well, then, you put Campobello and West Isles as about equal to Grand Manan ?— 
A. Yes; speaking as I do, not knowing exactly, I should say so. ’ 

Q. That would be half’a million for those two islands, and half a million for Grand — 
Manan—that makes a million; and you think the mainland is half as much as either 
of those; that would be a fair ‘estimate for the mainland ?7—A. Yes; Charlotte County 
is a verv important fishing county. In 1361 I was a census enumerator, and I think 
the result of the fishery in that county nearly equaled that of all the other fisheries of 
the province, with the exception of St. John County. 

Q. You put half a million as the catch of the British fishermen on the mainland for 
the year, and, in your judgment, the American catch is the same ?—A. Al! I can judge is 
by what I hear. They come down in their vessels. I think they have their own way 
on the north shore, very much more than on Grand Manan; I have a great deal of 
trouble with them there. But on the north shore I think they have things a 
much as they want. I would say that they probably surpass our own catch. 


You don’t agree witb that estimate ?—A. No. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. I want to call your attention to the last paragraph read to you, in 
which you contradicted the evidence of Mr. McLaughlin. Mr. Treseot , 
read to you the following: 

Q. You are well acquainted with the fisheries of Charlotte County; take the main- 
land from Letete as far as Leprean, is that a good vag 2 -ground ?—A. I am not per- 
sonally acquainted with it; I can only say from what I have heard. My duties haye — 
never carried me there. 


: 
A « 
} 
« ina 


- ds — \_—s —.. 9 2... ge ee 
Be ecu >» ’ . 
0 


. : 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. : 2701 


Do you undertake to say that vii coaee ground from Lepreau to 
Letete is a bad fishing-ground 7—A. 

Q. Then what made you contradict the statement ?—A. I contradicted 
ay remark he made in regard to American fishermen having their own 
wa 

@. The whole passage was read to you and you contradicted it?—A 
I referred to the last part that was read. 

Q. Did you hear the whole read ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Why did you not qualify your contradiction ?—A. I do so now. 

Q. You admit that if I had not called attention to it, your statement 
would have gone as contradicting Mr. McLaughlin’s testimony ?—A. I 
referred to the last part of what was read. 

Q. I call your attention to this: 

Q. What would be the value of the mainland fishery, the British fishery alone, 
taking it from Letite to Lepreau?—A. My own fishery is, say $500,000; Campobello 
» and West Isles must equal mine; and the mainland will certainly be more than half 
of that, if not equal to it. 

You have said that Campobello and the West Islands would equal 
Grand Manan?—A. Campobello and West Isles would be, I think, 


| about the same as Grand Manan. 


Q. That is the statement made here by Mr. McLaughlin, and you con- 
tradicted it.—A. I did not refer to that part. 

Q. Mr. McLaughlin puts down'that Campobello and West Isles would 
be equal to Grand Manan. Do you contradict that ?—A. I admit it to 


| ‘ be true, so far as I know. 


Q. You said in your answer.to Mr. Trescot yon did not agree to that. 
How often have you been at Grand Manan for the purpose of inquiring 
into the value and extent of the fishery 7—A. I have never been there. 
All I know is from the fish that come from there. 

Q. Never having been there, you yet presume to put your opinion 
sagainst and contradict the statement of Mr. McLaughlin, who has been 
there and has a practical knowledge of it?—A. J know about it from 
Llearn from the fishermen. I give my opinion of the value of the 
fishery. 

Q. You put your opinion against the oath of Mr. McLaughlin, who 
)has a practical knowledge of it 7—A. Yes, I put my opinion against his 
opinion. 

» Q. Although you have never been there and never examined closely 
into the extent of the fishery 7—A. I know the fish that come from 
there. 

Q. Do all the fish that come from there go to Eastport ?—A. I think 
they do. 

Q. Will you swear te that 7—A. No; because there are a few go to 
St. John’s—a very small quantity. 

Q. Will you swear that none are sent direct elsewhere than to St. 
John’s and Eastport ?—A. I don’t know of any. 

~ Q. Do you mean to say that American vessels which come down to 
catch fish cff the main land take it to Eastport? Do you bot know that 
they take the fish direct to Boston, Newburyport, or other ports on the 
American coast 7—A. I do not know it. 

La Do you say that they do not ?—A. I never heard of vessels going 
there, 


Q. If American vessels have gone there and fished off the main land, 
you have never heard of it ?—A. No. 

Q. If American vessels do go and fish there, would they not carry 
their cargoes elsewhere than to Eastport ?—A. I don’t think they would. 


| 


* > 


2702 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


-I think all the fish would come into Eastport, because all the fishing is 
done in smaller vessels, from 10 to 20 tons. 

Q. If vessels are sent down from Gloucester or Newburyport, or 
Machias, do you say they would necessarily call at Eastport after taking 
a cargo in our waters ?—A. Machias vessels would, because they sell at 
Eastport. 

Q. Do they always sell there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They never sell at Machias?—A. I never knew them do so. 

Q. How does that happen ?—A. Because Eastport is their market. 

Q. Is there no market at Machias ?—A. Not to any extent. 

Q. Did I understand you to say, in speaking of St. Andrew’s Bay, 
that the best fishing was on the American shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you further stated that Machias River ran into that bay 7— 
A. No; I said there were herring taken at Cross Island. 

Q. Did you not say when speaking of the fishing in St. Andrew’s Bay, 
that the best fishing was on the American shore, and went on to speak 
of the Machias River running into the bay ?—A. No; I will explain the 
statement. 1 say the best fishing in St. Andrew’s Bay is from Dog 
Island at Eastport to Lowerin’s Cove in Perry, and there are also herring 
taken at Cross Island, at Machias. 

Q. What have Cross Island and Machias to do with St. Andrew’s 
Bay ?—A. I was asked in regard to where herring are taken on the 
American shore. 

Q. You say you have never been to the main land, and have not 


therefore examined the fisheries, and yet you swear you don’t know of 


American vessels going there ?—A. I don’t swear that. I know of half 
a dozen vessels owned in Eastport. 

Q. Do they go and fish there?—A. Yes. 

Q. Off the main land ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What part of the main land?—A. Off Lepreau; I know they fish 
in that vicinity. I don’t know as much about the fishing there as I do at 
Deer Island, Grand Manan and Campobello. 

Q. Do you know where the fishing places on the main land are ?—A. 
1 know they fish off Beaver Harbor, Lepreau and Letite and in that 
vicinity. 

Q. Dont they fish at Back Bay 7?—A. Yes, they fish there; principally 
in the winter. 

Q. And at Mace’s Bay ?—A. I have not heard of fish being taken at 
Mace’s Bay. 


Q. You don’t pretend to know where the fishing places are on the 


main land?—A. I have some general idea of them. 

(. Have you ever been to St. George ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long is it since you were last there 7—A. Several years. 

(. Have you been there during the last ten years ?—A. I think so. 

(. Have you ever been in the adjoining parish, which borders on the 
bay, Pennfield ?—A. No. 

Q. Or the next parish, Lepreau ?—A. I have never been to Leprean.. 

Q. Have you been along the inner bay of Passamaquoddy, along the 
shore ?—A. No. 

(). You have been to St. Andrew’s, I suppose?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long is it sinve you were last there ?—A. A year or two. 

(). St. Andrew’s is connected by a steamer with Eastport 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. It is easy of access 7—A. Yes. 

Q. To St. George or St. Patrick, Pennfield or Lepreau you have never 
been, and you have been to St. George once, and that was 10 years. 
ago eat Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 7 2703. 


Q. Yet you put your opinion against that of a man who has been on 
the ground ?—A. I make my estimate from vessels from Eastport which 
I know fish there, from the English fish which comes into Eastport from 
that way, and from conversations with fishermen in regard to the fishing 


there. 

Q. That is all?—A. Yes. 

. Did you have those conversations for the express purpose of find- 
ing out how many fish were taken along the British coast?—A. No; it was 
never mentioned. 

Q. You never had any object in finding out what the catch was ?—A. 
No; I never inquired. 

Q. How often have you visited Grand Manan ?—A. I have never been 
at Grand Manan. 

Q. Campobello, which is quite near to Eastport—you have been there, 
I suppose ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is there valuable fishing ground on Campobello shore ?—A. They 
| pot up a good many smoked herring. 

Q. There is good fishing between Eastport and Campobello, within 
| three miles of Campobello shore 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. The fishing within three miles of Campobello shore is better than 
| the fishing on the American coast, is it not ?—A. The distance between 
| Eastport and Campobello is only one mile and three-quarters. 

Q. The fishing close up to the island is better than on the American 
| coast ?—A. It is everywhere in the bay. 

Q. Is it not better close to the shores of Campobello than close to the 
| American shores 7—A. It is pretty difficult to tell where the line runs 
' there. 

Q. Is not the channel much nearer the American shore than to the 
island of Campobello ?—A. The place where they catch most of the fish 

is between Eastport and Campobello, and is called the Ledge. I think 
‘itis about half way between the two. 

Q. Is not the channel nearerer the American shore than Campo- 
| bello?—A. There is not any channel there; it is all deep water. 

‘Q. When the tide is out is there not a well-known channel there close 
to the American shore?—A. No; a vessel can anchor anywhere off 

Eastport. 

Q. Don’t you know that the British line runs close to the American 
| _ Shore ?—A. No; I don’t know where the line dues run, or anybody else. 

Q. And you don’t know the channel close to the American shore 7?— 
| A. No, I don’t know it; I never heard any channel spoken of between 
| Eastport and Campobello. 

Q. Are there a large number of weirs round Campobello?—A. A good 
| Many. 

Q. Are there any on the Eastport side ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Many?—A. A good many. 

Q. At Eastport ?—A. Yes. 

_Q. Are there many between Eastport and Lubec and along the 

re ?—A. There are weirs at Perry, Lubec, and Cutler. 

Q. Which is nearest to Eastport, Perry or Lubec ?—A. Perry adjoins 
Eastport on. the mainland. Lubec is about two miles opposite to East- 
port by water. 

Q. Along that shore, from Eastport to Lubec, are there on the 
‘American shore many weirs ?—A. I should think there were. 

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge that there ate ?—A. I know 
there is a large number. 

Q. What do they take?—A. Herring. 


2704 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


© Q. And other fish ?—A. No; there is a place at Treat’s Island where 
there is an immense quantity of herring taken. 

Q. Where is that ?—A. It is part of Eastport, but it is an island. It 
is owned by a man named Treat, who is a resident of Eastport, and a 
great many herring are taken at that island. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that along the American shore they 
can catch as many herring as they want?—A. If they followed it as a 
business they could. 

Q. Why do they not follow it?—A. A good many are engaged in 
farming. Those living at Eastport, where the weirs are, have large 
farms there, and do a great deal of farming besides. 

Q. Are all the herring sold at Eastport? Is that the market ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Did I not understand you that when American vessels came down 
of late years men came over with herring from Grand Manan ?—A. It 
is a different kind to what is taken in weirs. The weir herring are 
small herring. 

Q. They don’t use them for bait ?—A. No. 

Q. Don’t you catch large herring on your coast ?—A. They do in 
winter. 

Q. They do not take large herring in the weirs ?7—A. Not to any ex- 
tent. 

Q. Then there are no large herring taken on your coast?—A. Yes; 
there are. 

. Q. How many are taken?—A. There are large herring taken in one 
of the coves at Eastport. 

Q. Are they taken to any extent ?—A. A good many. 

Q. Are they used for bait?—-A. They can use them for bait, but they 
are mostly taken in winter and frozen and broaght into Eastport and 
shipped by steamer. 

Q. At what season do the vessels which the fishermen supply with 
bait come down to Lubec ?7—A. In the spring. 

Q. If there are so many herring on your coast, why do not American 
fishermen supply the vessels coming down in the spring for bait? <Ac- 
cording to you the British fishermen go out and supply them with bait, 
though they have plenty on theirown shores. How do you account for 
it?—-A. There are several reasons. One thing is they would rather buy 
it from fishermen on the other side. The reason is because there are 
Englishmen from Campobello on board those vessels and they, of course, 
will patronize their own people. I will give you an illustration if you 
will allow me. Last March a gentleman from Gloucester, Mr. Babson, 
came to me to get up a quantity of herring to send to the Swedish mar- 
ket. I had them put in barrels and sent to my place in Eastport. He 
employed a man named Calder, of Campobello, to buy herring for him. 
After he got through there were so many small herring found among 
them that there was a loss on the euterprise, and the small herring had 
to be sold for smoking. The fishermen from the other side who came 
and wanted to sell, told him that Calder would not patronize any ex- 
cept his own people at Campobello, and but for them, they could have 
sold him large herring. I don’t know what there is in the statement; I 
give it as I got it. 

Q. Do I understand that on board every vessel there are Englishmen 
who prevent the vessels from dealing with American fishermen ?—A. I. 


| 


don’t know that there are altogether. Every season a great many go 
from the other side up to Gloucester to ship in those vessels. Eastport | 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2705 


vessels on Grand Manan Banks are filled with fishermen from Campo- 
bello and Deer Island. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that the majority of the crews are 
British or Americans of the vessels which come down?—A. At East- 
port the majority of them are British subjects, fishermen from Campo- 
bello and Deer Island. 

QQ. Those are they who man the vessels 7—A. Eastport vessels which 
go to the Banks. 

Q. I am speaking of the vessels which come in the spring for bait ?— 
A. I don’t think the majority are. 

Q. Though the majority are not English, the minority can control and 
make them buy of the British and not Americans. How do you account 
for that?—A. I account for it in this way, that those who are engaged 
in catching herring at that time are fishermen at Campobello and Deer 
Island, who come over to Eastport in their boats, and sell their herring 
to those vessels. 

Q. I want to know how that happens, when there are plenty of herring 
on your own shore. Do you account for it by saying that the British 
on board control the Americans ?—A.: To some extent. ; 

Q. It isa curious thing, which you are not able to explain?—A. I 
don’t think any herring are taken at Eastport at the time those vessels 
come there for bait. I think the herring are taken on the other side 

altogether. 

@. You have never been to Grand Manan ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you undertake to say that there is not a large fleet of American 
vessels fishing in there every year?—A. I should say there is not., I 
should be likely to know it if there was. 

Q. Not for herring alone, but for other fish ?—A. Some vessels fish 
there for codfish. 

Q. If such a thing happened you would have heard it ?—A. Yes. 

(. You have heard of Mr. McLaughlin ?—A. Yes. 

Q. He is a respectable man?—A. Yes. 

Q. He must have committed deliberate perjury in having stated that 
he saw American vessels there, you not having heard of any being 
there ?—A. I don’t say that. 

Q. DoT understand you to say that you don’t mean any American 
vessels come there for the purpose of fishing?—A. I don’t say so. I say 
vessels do come there cod-fishing. 

Q. For herring every year?—A. Not to any extent. 

Q. You don’t believe it?—A. No. 

Q. Then if Mr. McLaughlin swore that they did, he was committing 
deliberate perjury ?—A. I have nothing to say to that. 

»Q. Mr. McLaughlin having sworn what he swore, and you having given 

the opinion that, in your judgment, those vessels were not there, I ask 
you if you can escape the conclusion that Mr. McLaughlin was telling 

What was false?—A. I think Mr. McLaughlin was right when he told 

~ Somebody in Eastport that he would like to alter the testimony he had 
iven here. I don’t say anything as to whether Mr. McLaughlin told 
_ the truth or not. 
_ Q. You, a man who has never been at the island, and consequently 
never saw what the fishing there was, put your opinion against that of 
@ man who has been there and seen it?—A. I do; for I know from ves- 
sels which come from there to Eastport. 

-Q. Do you swear that a large fishing-fleet from Gloucester does not 
come down there and fish round the island, especially for herring 7A. 
1 don’t know that there is, only, as I said, for codfish. 

170 F 


2706 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I want to call your attention to a statement made in the Cape Ann 
Advertiser; I suppose you are aware it is a fisherman’s organ 7—A. I 
know it is a paper published in Gloucester, that is all I know of it. 

Q. I call your attention to a statement published in the issue of Feb- 
ruary 23,1877. It is as follows: 

From this humble beginning may be traced the success of the herring business, which 
has developed into a leading business industry, and employs many of the finest vessels 
of the fleet. For the first dozen years the business was confined to Newfoundland voy- 
ages; but of late years an extensive herring business has grown up with Grand Manan, 
and a few cargoes are brought annually from Nova Scotia. 

Q. What do you say to that ?—A. It refers to frozen herring. 

Q@. It says: ‘Of late years an extensive business has grown up with 
Grand Manan” ?—A. I say that is true; I don’t deny it. The vessels 
that come from Gloucester in the winter season go to Grand Manan first 
to buy cargoes of frozen herring. ; 

Q. This article is headed “ The herring business of Gloucester,” and 
it says: 

This herring industry enables our vessels to prosecute the Bank fisheries in February 
and March, when immense schools of fish resort thither, and the largest fares are brought 
in; it furnishes a valuable article of nourishing food for the New York, Boston, and 


other markets at a low price, and within the last year it has opened a profitable com- 
merce with Sweden, from which the best of results are anticipated. 


Another paragraph from the same article reads: 


The export trade of the past season, and the improved demand for home consump- 
tion, gave an impetus to the various branches of the herring fishery the past season, 
and some thirty-nine vessels were employed in the Newfoundland herring trade, salt 
and fresh, while some thirty-six vessels made herring trips to Grand Manan and Nova 
Scotia on Gloucester account. Most of the fleet have completed their voyages, and 
besides keeping this market well stocked, eight cargoes from Newfoundland and five 
from Grand Manan have been forwarded to New York, three Manan fares have been 
sent to Philadelphia, and three Newfoundland and three New Brunswick cargoes have 
been marketed in Boston. 


Do you believe those statements ?—A. That refers entirely to the 
frozen-herring business, from the fact that it says they send them to 
New York and Philadelphia, and Gloucester vessels come down to Grand 
Manan and buy cargoes of herring, take them to Gloucester, and send 
them to markets at New York or Philadelphia. 

Q. What is the practice round Grand Manan as to buying herring 7— 
A. They pay so much per hundred for them. 

Q. Do they fish for them themselves ?—A. No; they buy them. 

Q. You never have been there 7?—A. No. 

Q. You swear positively that they don’t catch them?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do they employ the fishermen to catch herring for them ?—A. 
The fishermen catch the herring; and they buy them and pay so much 
per hundred. 

Q. They never catch a herring ?—A. Not to any extent. . 

Q. To what extent do they catch them ?—A. It is very slight. In 
fact, I think they have given it up altogether; a few vessels formerly 
brought down nets. The skippers of those vessels have told me it did 
not pay to catch the herring, and they would rather buy them. I know 
one particular friend of mine who did this last winter. Again, the 


fishermen about Deer Island won’t let them catch herring, and cut their | 


nets, saying that the fishing belongs to them. 
Q. Although you were never at Grand Manan, you swear positively, 
that the Americans do not fish there?—A, I say they don’t to any 


| 


{ | 


| 
j 
| 
ui 
| 
| 
j 


extent. 


| 
Q. That you swear to positively 7—A. Yes. | 


| 


| 
| 


‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2707 


Q. As a matter you are sure of ?—A. Yes; as far as I can be sure of 
anything by conversing with fishermen. 

Q. Without any knowledge of your own ?—A. That is a]l the knowl- 
edge I have, and that ought to be enough. 

@. I want to call your attention to a statement in the Cape Ann 
Advertiser of January 26, 1877. Before I do so I wish to ask you if it 
is well understood there is a herring fleet that comes down there every 
season ?—A. Yes; there are a number of schooners that come down for 
herring. 

Q. Is it called the herring fleet?—A. I don’t know whether it is or 
not. I know they come there to buy herring. 

Q. This paper also says: 

The number of fishing arrivals reported at this port the past week has been four- 

_teen—ten from the Banks and La Have, and four from Grand Manan. The New Bruns- 
wick herring-fleet bring goed cargoes, and the supply, being greater than will be 
needed to bait the fishing fleets, will be marketed in part in other markets. 

That shows they go down to get bait?—A. Yes; because it is frozen 
ne they get for bait. They bait the vessels for going on the Grand 

anks. 

Q. Is this true? Iam reading now from “ The Fisheries of Glouves- 
ter from 1623 to 1876,” published by Procter Bros., of Gloucester, in 
1876: 


The Newfoundland and New Brunswick herring fisheries, of comparatively recent 
origin, while not unattended with hardship and danger, became at once an important 
‘auxiliary of the Georges and Banks fisheries, and have been pursved unremittingly 
from the start. —* ; 

A. I don’t know anything about the Newfoundland herring fishery. 

_ Q. Then about New Brunswick 7—A. I know they come there every 
winter. . 

Q. Do you deny that ?—A. It connects Newfoundland and New Bruns- 
wick. There may be hardships and dangers attending the Newfound- 
land fishery. I don’t know about that. 

Q. There is no hardship, in your estimation, about the Newfoundland 

fishery ?—A. No. 

Q. You think the writer would connect New Brunswick with New- 
foundland, and say there are hardships when he only meant it was in 
Newfoundland that hardships were incurred 7?—A. I don’t know what 
he meant. 

Q. He says that in that enterprise there were dangers and hard- 
ships ?—A. It-may be very well for a man sitting in his room to write 
such an article. 

Q. Probably such a man could write this of the fisheries as a man 
living at Eastport could speak of the fishing at Grand Manan, when he 
had never been there 7—A. No; only he had not been engaged in the 
fishing business for 20 years, as I have been. 
 Q. You never did any fishing round Grand Manan and never saw 
4. But I have bought the fish and had conversations with fisher- 

en. 

_ Q. In the same article as I have read, it says further : ° 

_ During the present season herring have been shipped hence to Sweden, at a good 
profit, and it is not impossible that this may prove the initial step toward the resump- 
tion of exportation of fish to foreign ports, an important industry of the port in the 
early days of its fishing enterprise. 

Do you agree with that ?—A. That is correct; the herring are put up 
at Eastport. ' 

Q. They are put up at Eastport and sent to Gloucester ?—A. Yes 


2708 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


two or three different firms from Gloucester bought herring in Eastport 
last year. One I packed out, and another party was there buying them 
packed up ip barrels. 

Q. Do I understand that you wish the Commissioners to believe that 
the Gloucester fleet comes down for the purpose of getting herring 
round Grand Manan, goes down to Eastport and ships herring there? 
—A. Yes. These parties are from Gloucester. 

Q. Does the New Brunswick fishing-fleet, the herring-fleet, take their 


cargoes into Eastport before they go to Gloucester ?—A. They go down . 


on the north side and buy herring and take them to Gloucester. 

Q. It comes to this. You come here for the purpose of contradicting 
Mr. McLaughlin as to what took place on the island of Grand Manan, 
where you say you never were in your life. Is that true?—A. I did 
not come here to contradict Mr. McLaughlin. 

Q. You have in fact contradicted Mr. McLaughlin ?—A. I have told 
what I know. 

Q. You put your opinion as to the facts respecting fishing round 
Grand Manan—though you have never been there in your life—against 
the opinion of Mr. McLaughlin, who has resided there all his life, and 
swears to certain facts. You do the same with regard to the main land, 
where you have never been, except once to St. George, and that ten 
years ago?—A. I consider I know as much about the fishing, buying 
fish at Eastport which comes from there, as Mr. McLaughlin, who keeps 
a light-house, knows about it. 

Q. Are you aware that it is part of Mr. McLaughlin’s business to go 
round to all the fishermen and ascertain exactly what the American 
catch was ?—A. I understand he is fishery-warden there. 

Q. Dol understand you to say you have as good a means of informa- 
tion in regard to Grand Manan as Mr. McLaughlin?—A. I think I 
have. 

Q. Do you swear you have as good means of information as Mr. 
James McLean in regard to the mainland fishery, he living there and 
doing business there?—A. I think so. He is engaged there in buying 
fish, and I am engaged at Eastport buying it. 

Q. Are you aware that he is engaged in fishing?—A. No; heis a 
merchant. 

Q. Do you swear he does not send out any fishing-vessels and small 
boats ?—A. He may send out some fishing-boats, but the principal part 
of his business is that of a merchant. 

Q. If he swears that he sends out fishing-vessels and boats, do you 
mean to say the statement is untrue ?—A. He may do that. 

Q. You undertake to put your opinion against his?7—A. Yes. 

@. Though you never have been there at all ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Mr.- McLaughlin has said this: 


Q. Now about how many American vessels fish on the coast during the season ?—A. 
It would be hard to tell that; it has never been my duty to count them. 

Q. They come in large numbers, and they generally outnumber ours ?—A. Yes; our 
people at Grand Manan fish but little in vessels. 


Yeu contradict that?—A. I do. 


Q. You say they fish a great deal in vessels and very little in boats?— | _ 


A. I say very few American vessels come there to fish. 

Q. Do you contradict the statement that Grand Manan people fish 
ves little in vessels ?—A. They have a dozen or twenty vessels over, 
there. 

Q. Do you contradict the statement or do you not ?—A. I don’t know 
whit he calls small or large. 


AWARD OF ‘THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ; 2709 


Q. You swear that the Grand Manan people fish round their own 
coast ?—A. Yes. 

.Q. Do you say that the American vessels do not outnumber the Grand 
Manan vessels?—A. I say they do not. 

Q. Though you had not been there at all?—A. I have not been there, 
but I know. 

Q. You swear positively that the statement is not true?—A. Yes. 

Q. Mr. McLaughlin also said: . 

Q. Do these vessels come in fishing within three miles ?—A. At a certain time of the 
year; in winter it is entirely within; the fall and winter fishing is entirely within. 

Do you contradict that?—A. The most of those vessels fish on Grand 
Manan Banks. 

Q. That is not the question. {Extract re-read.] What do you say to 
that ?—A. I say that in winter perhaps half a dozen vessels owned in 
Eastport may go over to Grand Manan fishing. They all fish inside 
when the herring are inside; within the last two or three or four years 

. the herring have been outside, and they fished outside for them. 

Q. So the statement is not true that the fall and winter fishing for 
_ herring is entirely inside ?—A. It is not entirely inside. 

Q. Is the bulk of it outside ?—A. No; I don’t know that the bulk is. 

Q. You say that the fall and winter fishing is entirely outside 7—A. 
Not entirely ; I say to a great extent. 

Q. The larger portion is outside 7—A. The boat fishermen of Grand 
_ Manan and the islands of New Brunswick are complaining that the 
| nets each year are being set ‘further off shore, and within the last year 
| or two or two or three years they have been so greedy, they say, that 
| they have put their nets four or five miles out. 

Q. Tell me a single man who has told you that the fishing in the fall 
| and winter fishery is not within three miles of the shore 7—A. I cannot 
| give you the name ofa Grand Manan man, but I can give you the 
| Mame of a man who has been continually fishing there and in that 
‘ vicinity for twenty years. It is not only at Grand Manan but at other 
| places they are complaining. ; 

Q. Can you give me the name of any Grand Manan man who told 
| you that ?—A. It was not a Grand Manan man who told me. 

Q. It comes to this: those men who are on the spot and ought to be 
/ able to know all about the fishing, you contradict, though you have 
‘ not been on the spot 7—A. I say my means of information are as good 

as theirs. I have been employed in business twenty years, and I have 
been accustomed to converse with fishermen. 

Q. Do you seriously swear before the Commission that your opinion 
| with reference to the fisheries prosecuted on the main land and at 

Grand Manan Island is as good as the opinion of those who have lived 
there all their lifetime ?—A. I consider that my opinion and my means 
of information are as good as theirs. 


: By Mr. Trescot : 


_ Q, In giving your testimony before the Commissioners, you dg not 
mean to give it as a practical fisherman 7—A. No; not at all. 

Q. You give it as a man representing a house which has been in the 
business for 60 years. You give your testimony, as I understand it, as 
a cotton-buyer would give his experience of dealing in cotton. He 

‘ knows the brands, the qualities, and the places from which the cotton 
comes; and his views would be based on that sort of information. Now, 
with regard to this question about the fishery, you have expressed the 
Opinion that in winter it is not exclusively an inshore fishery, and Mr. 


> 


2710 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Thomson has submitted the opinion of Mr. McLaughlin as opposed to 
this view; and I want to read the opinion of an overseer, Mr. Cunning- 
ham, of the Inner Bay, and see whether it agrees with yours. It is as 
follows: 

The winter herring fishery, I am sorry to say, shows a decrease from the yield of 
last year. This, I believe, is owing to the large quantities of nets—in fact miles of 
them—beimg set by United States tishermen all the way from Grand Manan to Le- 
preaux, and far out in the bay by the Wolves, sunk from 20 to 25 fathoms, which kept 
the fish from coming into the bay. 

As they are fishing far off shore, a week at a time, this destructive practice can be 
followed with impunity and without fear of detection. 


A. That is correct; that is what the fishermen are complaining of. 

Q. With regard to what is called the Gloucester herring fleet, to 
which reference has been made here once or twice—are you aware or 
not whether this fleet takes out licenses to touch and trade when they 
come to buy herring at Newfoundland, or at Grand Manan, in New 
Brunswick ?—A. I do not know anything about that matter. 


No. 60. 


WILLIAM DAVIS, master mariner and fisherman, of Gloucester, Mass., 
was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn 
and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. You are seventy-one years of age?—Answer. Yes. 

@. When did you first go fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence?—A. In 1838, 

Q. And when were you last there?—A. In 1876. 

Q. How many years were you there fishing in the interval ?—A. I 
could not tell exactly; but I was there for a good many years. 

Q. You have a list of them?—A. Yes. 

(. In what schooner were you there last year ?—A. The B. D. Has- 
kins. 

(). How long were you there in her?—A. About three months. 

@. How many barrels of mackerel did you then cateh?—A. One 
hundred. 

Q. What was your share in money ?—A. Twenty-six dollars. 

Q. For three months’ work?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were also there in 1872?—A. Yes. 

(). And you were there during a good many years between 1855 and 
1867?—A. Yes. . 

Q. Will you state to the Commission where you used to fish during 
those years, and where you caught your fish? I want you particularly 
to mention the places within the three miles of the shore where you used 
to fish or try to fish ?—A. I cannot name a great many places within | | 
three miles of the shore. - 

Q. Where did you use to go to fish in the bay ?—A. The first year I 
was ¢here we caught what we did get, and that was not a great many, 
on Banks Bradley and Orphan. : | 

Q. What were your principal fishing-grounds ?—A. These were Banks 
Bradley and Orphan, and the Magdalen Islands. ; 

Q. Where did you ever fish inshore in the bay within the three-mile 
limit ?—A. I so fished some little at Margaree, although I never was’ 
fortunate enough to catch any mackerel there save very few. 

Q. How near the main-land and how near the island did you fish at 


| 
| 
| 


~ 


’ A. In 1849, I think. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ; 2711 


Margaree ?—A. We fished some pretty near the island when we did fish 
there. 

Q. Did you ever fish in the Bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes, 
some. 

Q. When you did so, how far from the shore were you in the habit of 
fishing ?—A. Well, I have fished there 5 and 6 and 10 miles off shore, 
but Ido not think that l ever caught any mackerel there within the 
three-mile limit. We were generally pretty shy of the bend of the island. 

Q. Why ?—A. On account of it being a rather bad place for getting 
caught in with an on-shore wind. It is a rather dangerous place. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Did you ever fish much on the American coast?—A. Yes, in my 
young days. 

Q. But of late years, and since 1855, you preferred to come down to 
the bay to fish?—A. No; not always. 

Q. But generally was not this the case ?—A. Yes, I did prefer coming 
to the bay to fish with the hook and line. 

Q. Did you ever try in the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. Yes. I was in there 
once. 

Q. What was the average ot the catches which you made since you 
came to the Bay of St. Lawrence to fish ?—A. I have not figured them 
up, but these catches were not very large. I was not very lucky. 

Q. You have been rather unfortunate on your fishing trips ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you never fished within 3 miles of land in the bay ?7—A. I 
would not say that. 

Q. You never caught any there to speak of ?—A. Yes. I do not say 
that I did not catch anything within the three-mile limit, but i got very 
few there. 

Q. You fought shy of the Bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Well, 
that is so. 

No. 61. 


WILLIAM O. COOK, fisherman, of Gloucester, Mass., was called on be- 
half of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. How old are you ?—Answer. 48. 
Q. When did you first fish for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?— 
Q. During how many years were you fishing in the gulf?—A. 7. 
Q. Which years were those?—A., They are included from 1849 to 1861, 
I think. 
Q. What was the course you usually took when fishing for mackerel 
in the bay during this period ?—A. We usually first fished on Banks 


Orphan and Bradley, and afterwards at the Magdalen Islands; from 


thence we went and fished half-way across between the Magdalen Islands 
nd the Cape Breton shore; this used to be our fishing-ground when I 


_ first went to the bay. 


Q. How long did you stay there 7—A. We used to cruise around there 
along in October. 

Q. And where did you go in October?—A. We then erpised on the 
Cape Breton shore, keeping broad off from it. 

_Q. Did you fish during any part of the autumn off the Bend of Prince 
Edward Island?—A. O, yes, we have fished off there, but nowhere 
within the three-mile limit. 

Q. Did you usually fish there ?—A. No. 


2712 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You say that in the autumn you usually went to the Cape Breton 
shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What was your harbor there ?—A. Port Hood. 

Q. When you made Port Hood your harbor, how long did you fish in 
the vicinity 7A. Sometimes a fortnight and sometimes three weeks. 

Q. When did you usually leave the Magdalen Islands to go over in 
the vicinity of Port Hood ?—A. We usually left there about the 1st or 
the middle of October. 

Q. How near the main-land and how near Margaree Island were you 
in the habit of fishing when you were in the vicinity of Port Hood ?— 
A. I think that sometimes we fished near Margaree Island, but when 
the cutters used to be there we used to fish broad off. 

Q. What is the greatest number of mackerel that you ever caught 
within 3 miles of the shore, either of the island or main-land, at Mar- 
garee?—A. As near as I can recollect, this was in 1856, when we caught 
15 wash barrels about half-way between Mabou and Margaree Islands. 

Q. Were you in the gulf when the cutters were there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember any conversation taking place with the cap- 
tain of a cutterasto where you might fish ?—A. He told us that we could 
fish three miles from the land. 

Q. In what depth of water ?—A. Twelve fathoms. 

Q. What did he tell you about fishing in 12 fathoms of water?—A. He 
told us to stand off in 12 fathoms of water, and that we would then be 
clear of the land. 7 

Q. Where was this ?—A. Off New London Head. 

Q. What was the name of this captain?—A. I do not remember. 

Q. Do you remember the year when this took place ?—A. It was either 
in 1851 or 1852—I forget which. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. I suppose that when you would bein 12 fathoms of water off there, 
you would be about three miles from land ?—A. I could not tell you that. 
I thought by the looks of it, this was pretty near in. 

Q. And he told you to go off in 12 fathoms of water. I understood 
you to say that at Cape Breton you used to make Port Hood your har- 
bor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you stay there every night ?—A. No. 

Q. How often did you goin there?—A. When it was stormy we some- 
times went in there, and sometimes we anchored off Margaree Island. 

Q. In the month of October, you did not fish near the Magdalen Isl- 
ands at all?—A. O, I have been there late in October. 

Q. Was this the case as arule ?—A. I do not know about arule, but I 
have fished there in October. 

Q. You stated in answer to Mr. Foster that when October came you 
cruised around the Cape Breton shore?—A. Well, that was during part of 
October—not the 1st of October. During part of the month we did so. 

@. When, as a rule, did you leave the Magdalen Islands to go to the 
Cape Breton shore ?—A. I have staid around there until the 10th and 
the 15th of October. 

Q. That was the extreme limit of your stay there?—A. I could not 
say for certain, but that is the case as near as I can remember. 

Q. When did you generally leave the Magdalen Islands and go towards 
ne Cape Breton shore ?—A. I think about the 10th or the 15th of Oc- 

ober. 


| 
| 


4 


| 
| 
| 
| 
| 


_Q. Do you state this to be the general time when you left there?—A. 
Yes; we always were around there about the 10th, and sometimes the | 
5th and the 15th or the 20th of October. 
| 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2713 


Q. You left there from the 5th to the 20th of October?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the remainder of the season you spent off the Cape Breton 
shore’—A. We did not spend the whole time there; we might start 
off and go somewhere else. 

Q. Does'the weather become blowy about the Magdalen Islands about 
that period ?—A. Some years that is the case, and some years it is not. 

Q. I suppose that during the years you were on our coast during the 
Reciprocity Treaty you fished inshore and off shore and everywhere ?— 
A. There was nothing to stop us doing so, but we could not catch any 
fish inshore. There was nothing to catch inshore. 

Q. Did you then take particular notice whether you caught your fish 
in or off shore ?—A. I think we did. 

Q. Why ?—A. I do not know, but we talked the matter over among 
ourselves, as to how and where we caught our mackerel. 

Q. Did you catch many mackerel near Margaree?—A. No; I do not 
think that we did. 

Q. Do you mean to tell the Commission that the mackerel caught off 
Margaree are not caught within three miles of the island or within three 
miles of the shore 7—A. I have caught mackerel inside of the three-mile 
limit off Margaree Island. 

Q. When you bad the right to fish in there, did you not go within 
the three-mile limit ?—A. Yes; I say we did so. 

Q. Was it not your habit and custom to fish within three miles of the 
mere during the Reciprocity Treaty?—A. No. We used to fish off 
shore. 

Q. What, then, did you mean by telling Mr. Foster that you fished 
near Margaree, and that when the cutters were there you fished broad 
off?—A. And when the cutters were not there I fished inshore ? 

Q. That would be the inference ?—A. I said that when the cutters 
were there, I fished broad offshore. 

_Q. I presume from this that when the cutters were not there, you 
fished inside the three-mile limit ?—A. I do not know about that. 

Q. Is that correct ?—A. We always used to fish offshore, and inshore 


Q. Did you take out licenses ?—A, We did not. 

Q. Were you in the bay during the license years ?—A. Yes. 

Q. During what years were you there? You said that you fished in 
the bay from 1849 to 1861—then you were not there during the license 
years ?—A. No. 

Q. What were your average catches in the bay?—A. 150 and 250 
barrels; and some years 300 barrels; and one year our catch was 600 
barrels ; all of which we caught on Banks Bradley and Orphan. 

Q. When was this?—A. In 1860. 

*’ You do not know anything about fishing in the bay since 1861 ?— 

- No. ' 

_ Q. Or whether the fish have of late years been taken in their old 
haunts or not?—A. No. 

_ Q. What was the size of the vessel in which you took that large , 
catch 7—A. 118 tons. 

Q. Did you ever fish about Seven Islands ?—A. No. : oe 

Q. And you never fished much about Prince Edward Island ?—A. 

_ No, nota great deal; and I never fished any to the nor’ard of Banks 
| Orphan and Bradley. 

Q. Did you fish there outside of four or five miles from the shore ?— 
A. used to fish there so as just to see New London Head; and we 
fished from there to North Cape. 


2714 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. And that would be in 12 fathoms of water?—A. We would be 
pretty near in when in 12 fathoms of water. 

Q. You did fish there off shore ?—A. Yes; we did. 

Q@. But were you accustomed to fish there? Was it one of the fishing 
grounds or haunts which you frequented ?—A. No; we used to go to 
the Magdalen Islands to get big mackerel. 

Q. And after they were done, and if you were not successful there, 
you went to these other places ?—A. We used to go to Banks Bradley 
and Orphan, and to Bird Rocks. 

Q. When you were not successful there do you mean to say that you 
did not try off Prince Edward Island?—A. We used to try broad off 
shore there—in sight of land. 

Q. Iam not speaking of the limits; but did you not try off Prince 
Edward Island every year ?—A. We fished there broad offshore. 


Q. Never mind that; but every year you fished there?—A. I say we | 


used to fish there so that we could see the land; we fished up and down 
broad off the land; we would be about 25 or 26 miles off. 

Q. Did you do so every year?—A. No; wedid not. In 1860 we fished 
altogether off the Magdalen Islands and off Bird Rocks. 

Q. That was for one year?—A. Yes; and in 1856 also we fished there 
altogether. 

Q. With the exception of these two years, you fished every year off 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. Well, we used to fish there broad offshore 
so as to see land ; we did not like to go in. 

Q. What then induced you to have a conversation with the captain 
of a cutter respecting the distance off shore, where and in what number 
of fathoms you should fish ?—A. We did so because we wanted to find 
that out so as to satisfy ourselves. 

Q. If you never fished off there save at a distance of 20 or 21 miles 
from land whatearthly necessity could there be for making such an inquiry 
at all?—A. We had nothing to go by so as to tell what distance we were 
from land. 

Q. Do you meau to tell the Commission that although you fished 21 
miles off shore there was any necessity to inquire of a captain of a cut- 
ter in how many fathoms of water you should fish, so as not to fish 
within three miles of the shore ?—A. If we fished in toward the limits, 
we wanted to know when we would be safe. 

Q. Why did you want to know the exact depth of water in which to 
fish ?—A. We saw the captain of the cutter when we were going in, 
and some wanted to heave to and fish, while others urged that we 
should ask him about it. 

ree you never caught any fish inshore?—A. I did not say that 
we did. 

Q. Why did you wish to know the exact limit ?—A. I never caught 
any fish inside the limit there; but I have done so on the Cape Breton 
shore. 

@. Why did you want to know the exact distance at which you 
Should fish off New London Head ?—A. We wanted to satisfy our 
minds and know where thé limit was. 


No. 62. 


EDWARD HIL.t, fisherman, of Gloucester, Mass., was called on behalf j 


of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Foster: “ 
Question. How old are you ?—Answer. I am 56, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2715 


Q. When did you first fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 1850. 

Q. During how many years altogether have you fished for mackerel 
in the gulf?—A. 14. 

Q. When did you last fish there 7—A. In 1869. 

@. What were your principal fishing grounds when fishing for mack- 
erel in the gulf?—A. These were about the Magdalen Islands, and be- 
tween them and Cape Breton, and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. 

Q. Did you ever fish off the bend of Prince Edward Island 7—A. No; 
near North Cape and about 10 miles off was the closest in that I have 
been off the island ; but we never tried there. 

Q. Where have you fished the nearest to the shore in the gulf ?—-A. 
Off Margaree. 

@. When did you go there usually 7—A. In October. 

Q. Were you in the gulf in October, 1850 ?—A. Yes. 

. In what schooner ?—A. The B. H. Collis. 

Q. Who was the captain ?—A. Llewellyn Reed. 

Q. Did you come in contact with a cutter commanded by Captain 
Darby 7?—A. We did while we were in Port Hood. 

Q. I want you: to relate that incident exactly as it occurred.—A. 
When we first got in the bay, on the first trip we went, it was in Octo- 
ber; about the 7th of October we went from Port Hood down to Mar- 
garee, and there was a man who came on board from another vessel, 
and says he. “‘ There is a Rockport vessel which has been taken by Cap- 
tain Darby.’ 

Q. Come right down to what was done by Captain Darby.—A. We 
caught about 25 barrels there, and then we got scared and went off 
shore. When we got to Port Hood we had a good deck of mackerel. 
We had them all salted on deck. Captain Darby came on board, and 
says he, ‘‘ You have a fine lot of fish; I want to see your papers.” He 
took them on board the cutter, and said to the captain, ‘‘ Come on board 
in about an hour’s time; we will talk it over.” The next thing, our cap- 
tain came on board, and says he, “I have compromised with him by 
giving him 20 barrels of mackerel, and,” says he, “a little pinkey will 
come alongside for them.” We thought that this was in charge of the 
captain’s brother, but I have heard since that this was not the case. We 
took the fish off our deck, and struck them down into his hold, and off he 
went; and he gave us permission to strike the mackerel down. 

Q. What do you mean by striking them down?—A. Heading them 
up and stowing them in the hold. 


By Mr. Thomson ; 


Q. That was in 1850 or 1851?—A. It was in 1850. 
Q. You had been fishing in Margaree Harbor ?—A. We had been fish- 
ing off Mabou. ; 
Q. You had been fishing within three miles of the land ?—A. We then 
caught 25 barrels there. ‘ 
Q. Within three miles of land?—A. I do not know about that; the 
dand is very high at Mabou, and it is hard to tell the distance exactly. 
_ No cutter was there, but only this little boat, which informed Captain 
Darby of it. ' 
Q. Will you now undertake to swear that you did not catch those 25 
barrels within three miles of the shore?—A. Well, I am not certain 
* about it; the distance off shore might have been three or four miles. 
_ Q. Will you positively swear that you did not take them within three 
milestof land?—A. No. 
-‘Q. How many barrels of mackerel had you then on hand ?—A 140. 


2716 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Where had you caught the rest?—A. Broad offshore, about 20 
miles off; between that point and Entry Island, of the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Then you got frightened and ran off to Port Hood ?—A. We got 
our decks full and it es up and we had to run to Port Hood fora 
harbor. 

Q. Where were these 25 barrels lying ?—A. On the deck along with 
the rest. 

Q. When you eatch mackerel, do you not dress them and put them 
at once into barrels ?—A. No, not until we get all we can into the barrels 
and until they are fairly struck. We leave them for 24 hours generally 
and then head them up and strike them down. 

Q. What do you call fairly struck ?—A. Salted so that they will not 
shrink. 

Q. As soon as you catch them you salt them ?—A. As soon as we get 
them we let them soak in water for perhaps two or three hours, if we 
have good weather. 

Q. You then open them ?—A. We then dress them. 

Q. How was it with these 25 barrels ?—A. They were on deck along 
with the rest. 

Q. Were these fish lying in water on deck ?—A. They were all salted 
when we reached Port Hood. 

Q. And they were in barrels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were they headed up ?7—A. No. 

@. And you saw Captain Darby after you came to Port Hood ?—A. 


Q. You were then in the harbor ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. Was it foul weather when he came on board and took your papers? 
—A. He came on board and got the papers from the skipper, and he 
then went back to his cutter and told the captain to come in about an 
hour’s time, and he did so. 

Q. Who was your captain ?—A. Llewellyn Reed. 

Q. Where is he now ?—A. He is in Gloucester, working as a teamster. 

Q. Your captain went on board of the cutter?—A. Yes; and he 
stopped there, I suppose, about half an hour, when he came back. 
‘“ Well,” says he, ‘I have got the papers, and we have permission to 
head them up, and stow them down”; and says he, “I have got to give 
him 20 barrels of mackerel to compromise for the papers.” 

Q. Then I understood you to say that Captain Darby came down to 
your vessel, took away the papers, told the captain to come on board of 
the cutter, and about half an hour after he went, your captain came back, 
and said he had compromised with Captain Darby, of the cutter, by 
giving him 20 barrels of mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What kind of mackerel were they ?—A. Number ones, and good 
ones—very good ones. 

Q. Were these taken on board of the cutter?—A. They were put on 
board of the small pinkey; he had a little spy there, and he spied us out. 

Q. Was the pinkey the spy?—A. Yes. 

Q. How much did this pinkey get ?—A. I could not tell you anything 
about how they settled her hash. 

Q. What became of the fish ?—A. They were put on board of the 
pinkey. Other vessels had to give him some. The Reindeer, of New- 
buryport—I recollect it the same as if it had happened but yesterday— 
took 2 barrels alongside the cutter, but Captain Darby was somewhere 
on shore, or on board of some other vessel, at the time; they asked if 
Captain Darby was on board, and the answer was, “ No 7". then said the 
mate, “ What have you got?” ‘ We have 2 barrels of mackerel here to 


en —_ 
_ . “o% 
i ; 
a 


oe 
. > 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . BA ih & 


give us permission to stow our mackerel down.” “ Well,” says the mate, 
“this is tall”; and they took on board the mackerel. 

qQ. As one of the crew, you were entitled to your share ?—A. I lost 
my share of that catch. We did not know whose mackerel were taken. 
We do not put our private mark on them until they are headed up. . 

Q. How did you tell them ?—A. We had them separated. I told the 
skipper not to mix them all up, but to take part of each man’s catch. 

@. How could you tell whose catch it was?—A. We have them all 
separated, and a space left between. 

Q. Then you knew what barrels belonged to each of the crew ?—A. 
No; because he mixed them all up—he was so agitated and scared. 

Q. That was before the cutter got hold of them at all?—A. We had 
them all right before the cutter got hold of them. 

Q. Were they all headed up ?—A. No; but they were in barrels, the 
fish being piled up, and heaping over to a considerable extent, when 
Captain Darby came on board. 

@. You mean that the barrels were full?—A. Yes; and heaped up. 

Q. That was all done when you were.running from Margaree to Port 
Hood ?—A. No; we proceeded to salt them in Port Hood. We had 
them all in salt barrels; we were all night dressing them; and by the 
time we got to Port Hood we had them all split, gutted, and in water; 
we then commenced to salt them; and when we had all but 2 barrels 
salted we saw the cutter coming. 

Q. To whom did these three barrels belong ?—A. I could not tell. 

Q. Had they been kept separate?7—A. We had them all salted but 
those. 

Q. Do you know to whom these 2 barrels belonged ?—A. N 0; I could 
not tell exactly. 

Q. Did you know at the time ?—A. No. 

Q. Then the fish were all mixed up at that time?—A. We do not look 
out for each other’s mackerel, but for our own; and I looked out for 
mine. 

Q. Had any salt been put in these barrels at the time?—A. All my 
fish were then under salt. a 

Q. Were they in barrels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You knew your own barrels ?—A. Yes—if they have not been dis- 
furbed; I. knew them as they were when I put them up, before they 
were disturbed. 

Q. How could they be disturbed when once in the barrels?—A. The 
barrels were shifted round. The skipper got excited. 

Q. What were they shifted round for? Were they not shifted round 
because the officer of the cutter came on board ?—A. After the skipper 


_ €ame from the cutter he took anything and everytning, he was so ex- 


cited. 
Q. You mean that he slung the barrels about?—A. He took them as 
they came and headed them up himself; that is, what Captain Darby 
ot—the rest were not headed up. 
_ Q. How many barrels of mackerel had you on board besides those 
Which you gave to Captain Darby ?—A. We had 140 on deck and in the 
hold before we gave him any. ees: 
Q. If you had really been fishing within 3 miles of the shore, and 


, you cannot swear that you were not, he let you off pretty eps y, instead 


taking your whole cargo and your vessel besides ?—A. He (ook just what 
we caught inshore. 

That was getting off pretty easily 7—A. ‘That was the first year I 
‘was in the bay. 


2718 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You do not know what took place between your captain and Cap- 
tain Darby ?—A. No; I do not. 

Q. You do not know whether your captain told him fairly enough that 
he had caught 20 barrels within ‘the limits ?—A. No; I could not say as 
to that. 

Q. As you say, he just took the fish which you had caught within 
the limits. Now I will ask you fairly if that was not letting you off a 
great deal easier than you deserved, considering the fact that you_had 
forfeited the vessel and all that was in it?—A. I do not know about 
that; it was kind of hard. 

@. Would it not have been kind of harder if the vessel and all the 
rest of the cargo had been taken ?—A. O, yes; of course. 

Q. Now, were you not very glad to get off as you did; that spy, the 
pinkey, was too much for you ?—A. I told them that.I would fight for 
my mackerel before I would give them up. 

Q. That is the only experience you have had with the cutters ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. I think that Captain Darby let you off wonderfully easy in only 
taking the fish which you had no business to catch, such as were Brit- 
ish subjects. During all these fourteen years it seems that you never got 
nearer than within: 10 miles of Prince Edward Island ?—A. O, yes; I 
have been there myself within five and six miles of the shore. 

Q. I thought that you never got nearer than within 10 miles of it ?—A. 
I took out a license once. 

Q. When was this ?—A. In 1866; but it did not pay. There were no 
mackerel inshore. 

Q. Had you fished before 1866 within the limits?—A. Well, I might 
have fished within four or five miles or so of the land; perhaps I might 
have done so, but 1 could not say. I caught them wherever I could get 
them. I was, however, rather skittish about going in there, because I 
owned the best part of the vessel myself, and I would not run any risks. 

Q. But you did so sometimes 7?—A. I thought I was outside then. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that you never meant to get in with- 
in the three-mile limit at any time ?—A. Not when I owned the vessel 
myself; only the year when I took out the license, I fished wherever I 
had a mind to. 

Q. You were afraid of the cutters ?—A. Yes; if I had lost my vessel, 
I had lost my all. 

@. And you would not risk it ?—A. No. : 

Q. During those years when you kept outside of the three-nile limit, 
did you get pretty good fares ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Very good ones ?—A. Yes; very good indeed. 

Q. How many barrels would your vessel take ?—A. One would only 
take 267 barrels. 

Q. In all these trips that you made, did you get full fares ?—A. Not 
all; in 1869 and in 1867 I did not get full fares. 

Q. Before 1866, did you ever fish inshore?—A. No; but I caught 295 
barrels just in sight of Entry Island. I got my whole trip off there. I 
was never inshore at all during that trip. ; 

Q. If in previous trips you had managed to get full trips off shore, 
what induced you in 1866 to pay for a license ?—A. I wanted the chance 
of fishing inshore or offshore, as I might wish. 

@. What was your object in paying out money for a license, if pre- | 
viously you had got full fares outside ?—A. Sometimes the fishing at’ 
Margaree fails, and sometimes there is a school of mackerel there, or so 
I had been told, for I never saw them there myself. I daresn’t go in. 


| 
| 
| 


si 


4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2719 


q). The fact of the matter is, that the mackerel are sometimes, accord- 
ing to your idea, out in the bay, and sometimes they schvol inshore ; is 
it not then a privilege to be able to follow them inshore 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And the people who have that privilege are better off than those 
who have it not; the former have a better chance of securing fares ?— 
A. Well, I do not know about that. I could not say that, because I 
found the mackerel more plentiful offshore than inshore. 

Q. How much did you pay for the license 7—A. 50 cents a ton. 

«). What was the tonnage of your vessel 7?—A. 49. 

@. Why did you pay $24.50 for a license, having no object for doing 
so ?—A. I did it so that I could fish where I had a mind to, and so that 
if I found them inshore I could catch them there. 

Q. And always before that you had found plenty of mackerel in the 
body of the bay 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You never previously fished within the limits at all?—A. Yes; I 
did so in 1851. 

Q. Did you fish inshore in 1851 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you get good fares that year?—A. We caught, perhaps, 40 o 
50 barrels inshore towards the’last of our fishing. 

Q. When were you last in the bay 7—A. In 1869. 

Q. I suppose that you have heard that the mackerel have kept inshore 
much more of late years than was formerly the case 7—A. No; I do not 
know anything about it, because the vessels have not been doing any- 
thing. All the vessels say that they have not been doing anything at 
all. 
Q. Have you heard that the mackerel have kept inshore of late years 
more than they did previously ?—A. No; I have not. 

Q. Then in all those voyages you never went inshore - to fish, except 
in 1851 and in 1866, when you took out a license?—A. No; not inside 
the limits. 

Q. You kept off shore all the time?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you get full fares all the time ?—A. I did not get full fares in 
1869 and 1867. 

Q. And yet you did not try inshore at all?—A. No; because the ves- 
sels which went inshore did not get anything. 

Q. And you would not try inshore?—A. I would not run the risk. 

(J. Did you ever fish in the Bay of Chaleurs?—A. No; never. 

Q. Have you never heard that good fishing was to be had on the 
northern shore of Prince Edward Island ?—A. No. 

(). You never have ?—A. No. 

Q. Not from any one?—A. No. I went round the island once. 

Q. You have never heard from anybody that there is good fishing 
along the northern shore of Prince Edward Island, within the three-mile 
limit ?—A. No. 

Q. Well, then, in your opinion the privilege of fishing within three 
miles of the shore along the British coasts is of no value at all to Amer- 
_ men 2—A,. It is not’a great deal of value to them, I should 
think. 

_ Q. Is it of any value ?—A. I suppose it is some at times. I suppose 
there are times when the vessels themselves would benefit by it. 

_Q. Was it so in 1854 and before 1854? You recollect when the Re- 
ciprocity Treaty was entered into ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. Was it a privilege then ?—A. I was not in the bay then. 

‘Q. You were there in 1850 and 1851 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you there in 1852 and 1853?—A. No... 

Q. When were you next in the bay ?—A. In 1855, I believe. 


2720 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Did you fish in the bay at all during the Reciprocity Treaty, from 
1854 to 1866 7?—A. Yes, I did so in 1858. 

Q. Did you fish inshore then ?—A. We tried inshore and got five bar- 
rels of mackerel in August, off Cape George, with a seine. 

Q. Where is Cape George ?—A. It is before you get to Pictou. 

@. Did you not fish along the shore of Prince Edward Island last 
year 7—A. No. 

Q. Or off Margaree 7?—A. No. 

Q. Did you get a full fare then ?—A. No, nor half a fare. 


Q. You then knew that you had a right to go inshore and fish 7—A, | 


No, I did not know anything about it, nor did the captain. 
@. I understand you to say that you went there in 1858 and did not 


know that you had a right to go and fish within three miles of the shore? | 


—A. I did not. ; 


Q. You did not know that the Reciprocity Treaty was in force and | 
that it gave you a right to fish where you pleased ?—A. No; I was a | 


hand then. 
Q. Did you understand from the captain that the reason he kept off 


shore was because he was afraid of the cutters ?—A. No; he was not | 


afraid of the cutters. 

Q. Why did you not go inshore ?—A. If he saw mackerel in or off shore 
he would have seined them. 

Q. You did not get a full fare ?—A. No. 

@. When did you enter the bay 7—A. About the last of July. 

Q. And when did you go out ?—A. The last of October. 

@. You only made one trip ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you fishing all that time ?—A. Broad off shore and on 
Bank Bradley. 

Q. Broad off shore ?—A. Between the Magdalen Islands and Cape 
Breton. 

Q. Were you fishing near East Point, Prince Edward Island ?—A. No, 
we did not go near East Point, but we were off North Cape once. 

Q. You were not broaé off East Point at all?—A. No; but the vessel 
was broad off between the Magdalen Islands and Cape Breton. 

Q. When was this ?—A. In 1858. 

Q. And yet you did not know that you had then a right to go inshore 
to fish ?—A. I did not mind anything about it. 

Q. Why did you not suggest it to the captain since you were interest- 
ed in getting a full fare?—A. I had nothing at all to say in the matter. - 

@. You were a sharesman?—A,. Yes. 

Q. Why, then, did you not suggest to the captain to go and fish in- 
shore off Prince Edward Island?—A. He might have told me to mind 
my own business. 

Q. But this was your business ?—A. If a man, while I was skipper, 
said anything like that to me, I would tell him to mind his own business, 
and that I would attend to my own. 


Q. Is it not the business of a sharesman to do so?—A. No; they are || 


on what we eall half lines. 


Q. Then, in 1858, although you had the right to fish inshore, you ab- 


solutely kept out in the middle of the bay, only got half a fare, and 
staid there from July to October?—A. We tried inshore at Cape 
George, and we thought eur luck would be the same at other places. 


By Mr. Foster: 
Q. Did you ever try seining in the gulf?—A. Yes; in 1858, 1859, and| 
1860, in one vessel. 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.” . 2723 


Q. With what success ?—A. Very little indeed. 

Q. Those were the years when you got these poor fares?—A. Yes; we 
each made about $75 the whole summer. 

Q. What sort of seines did you use ?—A. The purse-seine. 

Q. Did you do so as early as 1858?—A. Yes; we had them on our 
shore. 

Q. You were at Seven Islands ?—A. Yes, with purse-seines, but got 
nothing. We stopped a good while there and we thus threw a great 
deal of our time away. 

Q. You thus seined in 1858, 1859, and 1860?—A. Yes; we were at 
Seven Islands in 1858. 

Q. What was the name of your schooner and the name of the cap- 
tain?—A. The former was named the Potomac, and the latter, Nehemiah 
Adams. 

Q. That was quite early for purse-seines?—A. We had purse seines 
for pogies and mackerel years before that at home; that is the way in 
which we catch pogies altogether on our shore. 4 have seen vessels 
belonging to this place at Seven iatanda, ¥ which stopped until fall and 
came away without a barrel. 


No. 63. 


JOHN CONLEY, Jr., fisherman, of Rockport, Mass., was called on be-- 
half of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 
Question. What is your age 7—Answer. It is 43. 
Q. You have lived in Gloucester nearly all your life?7—A. Yes; with 
the exception of 10 years, during which I have lived in Rockport. 
Q. Is this place in a different customs district?—A. No; we have w 
deputy collector at Rockport, but we have to go to Gloucester to get 
| our papers. 
-Q. When did you first fish in the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 1854. 
Q. What was the name of the vessel in which you were that year ?— 
- A. The C. C.-Davis. 
Q. You made one trip that year?—A. Yes. 
Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you catch 7?—A. 175. 
Q. Were they caught off or in shore?—A. They were taken offshore. 
Q. All of them ?—A. All with the exception of a few barrels, perhaps 
five, which were caught inshore. 
Q. In what vessel were you in 1855?—A. The Racer. We made one 
trip. 
Q. How many barrels did you catch ?—A. 250. 
Q. Where.did you first fish ?—A. On Bank Bradley. 
Q. And then?—A. We next went down to the Magdalen Islands, 
Q. How much of these 250 barrels did you catch at the Magdalen 
Islands?—A. We got almost the whole of them there. 
Q. Where did you catch the rest ?—A. Around East Point and scat- 
tered along the shore. 
_Q. In 1855 you had the right to fish where you liked?—A, Yes. 
-Q. And you knew that?—A. Yes. 
Q. Did you attempt inshore fishing ?—A. Yes. 
Q. And you think that you gave it a fair trial ?7—A. vest 
Q. What portion of your entire cargo did you catch inside of three 
miles of the shore that year ?—A. Perhaps 15 barrels out of the 250. 
Q. Were you in the bay in 1866?—A. Yes; in the Belvidere. 


171 F 


i 


‘a | 


2722 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How many barrels did you catch ?—A. 200. 


Q. What portion of these were caught inside the three-mile limit ?— | 


A. 7 or 8 barrels; we fished on Bank Bradley and along the Escuminae 
shore, off the west coast. 

Q. Were you in the bay or on our shore in 1857 ?—A. I was then on 
our shore. 

Q. What were you doing ?—A. Seining. 

Q. How many barrels did you take?—A. About 500. 

Q. That was the best business you had yet done ?—A. Yes. 


! 


Q. On what part of the American coast did you fish ?7—A. From Mount | 


Desert to Cape Cod. 


Q. In what vessel were you in 1858?—A. The Sarah B. Harris; I | 


then made my first experience as master. 
@. How many trips did you make to the bay in 1858 ?—A. Two. 
Q. What did you catch ?-—A. 130 barrels on the first and 170 barrels 
on the second. 
Q. Wheredid you catch the 130 barrels?—A. At the Magdalen Islands, 
Q. Where did you make your second trip?—A. At the Magdalen 
Islands and at Margaree—broad off Margaree Island. 
Q. How many of these 300 barrels do you think were caught within 
3 miles of the shore?—A. Well, as well as I could judge, we might have 
so caught 15 barrels. 
. Were you in the bay in 1859?—A. Yes; in the Trenton. 
Q. Were you mackerel or cod fishing ?—A. I was cod-fishing one trip 
and mackereling one trip. 
. You were first cod-fishing 7—A. Yes. 
. Where ?—A. On Banks Orphan and Bradley. 
. Were you successful ?7—A. Yes. 
. Where did you make your second trip?—A. Inthe bay, for mackerel. 
. What did you then catch ?—A. About 145 barrels. 
Where did you get them?—A. We caught the most of them off 
Cape George, on Fisherman’s Bank. 
Q. Did you catch any portion of them within three miles of the 
coast?—A. Yes. ; 
Q. About what portion ?—A. 10 or 12 barrels, I should judge; they 
were caught around Pomquet Island. 
Q. What did you do in 1860 ?—A. I was banking. 
Q. Cod-fishing ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Did you do well?—A. Yes; very well, indeed. 
Q. Did you go into the bay the same year VAS No; I did not again 
go into the bay until 1862, 
Q. In 1861 you were on the American coast ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Mackereling ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Seiping 7—A. Yes. 
Q. How many barrels did you take ?—A. 500, I think. 
Q. Where were you in 1862?—A,. In the bay, i in the schooner Roger 
Williams. 
Q. How many trips did you make?—A. Two. 
Q. How much did you get ?—A. 300 barrels each trip. 
" Q. hee did you catch them?—A. Most of them at Magdalen 
slands 
Q. Any portion of them inshore?—A. Yes. 
Pe What portion, do you think!—A. Probably we got 20 barrels in- 
shore. 


LCOOLLD 


. 


Q. In 1863 where were you?—A. On our shores. From that time up 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2723 


to 1872, ten years, I was fishing on our shores—mackerel-fishing in small 
boats. 

Q. Were not the 10 years from 1866 to 1876?—A. No. 

Q. In 1863 what did you do ?—A. I was in the Franklin F. Schank. 

Q. Where did you go first?—A. To the Grand Banks. 

Q. Did you go into the bay at all?—A. Yes, in the fall. 

Q. What did you catch ?—A. 160 barrels of mackerel. 

Q. Where did you catch them?—A. At Magdalen Islands and East 

Point. 

Q. How many of those do you think you took inshore ?—A, 15 bar- 

rels. 

Q. Where did you catch them a Right off Red Head, at Souris. 

@. Were you close in?—A. Yes. 

Q. How did you catch them ?—A. It was blowing fresh at the time, 

and we sprung up and caught them. 
Q. In 1864 where were you?—A. On our shores. 
Q. Cod-fishing 7—A. Yes. 
Q. How many trips did you make ?—A. Onur trips were short. 
Q. How many pounds or quintals did you get for the whole season ?7— 
A, I made two trips and got 145,000 pounds each trip. 

Q. Was that being very successful ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Take 1865—on the first trip did you go to the Banks or bay 7—A. 
To the Banks. 

Q. Did you do well there?—A. Yes. 

~ Q. What else did you do that year ?—A. I did not do anything. 

Q. Did you catch any haddock ?—A. I think we did a little haddoek- 

ing, but nothing to speak of that year. 

Q. From 1866 to 1876 you were on the American shore ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you go into the bay at all?—A. No. 

Q. What were you engaged in?—A. In market fishing, for Boston 

market, for haddock or mackerel or any fish we could catch. 

Q. You are out but a day or two?—A. We make short trips, some- 

times two trips a week, sometimes one trip. 

Q. For fresh fish 1A. Yes. 

Q. You have never done any fishing with pounds and nets on shore ?— 

A. No. 
Q. During the ten years from 1866 to 1876 you were fishing on the 
American shore—were you successful ?—A. Yes, successful. 

‘ QQ. How did you succeed during the 10 years you were fishing on the 
American coast compared with the long period you were in the bay ?— 
A. I think it was a little better than it was in the bay. 

Q. You were in the bay from 1855 to 1865, during the Reciprocity 

- Treaty, and there was nothing to prevent you fishing where you pleased. 

Do you think you gave a fair trial to the inshore fisheries ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is the result of your experience during those 10 years you 
| Were in the bay as to the inshore fishing compared with the fishing out- 
f \ side ?—A. As far as my own experience goes, I never reaped much benefit 

m the inshore fishing. 

a And yet you tried it?—A. Yes, often. 
Taking the bay fishing as a whole, do you think the right to fish 
within three miles adds much to its value?—A. It did not to me, to my 
fishing. 

_ Q. That is your experience ?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. You have been cod-fishing a good while?—A. Yes. 
_ Q. Have you used fresh bait?—A. Yes. 
Q. And fished with salt bait?—A. Yes. 


, = 


2724 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

Q. Take the result of your experience. Do you think it would be 
more beneficial as regards the pecuniary results of the trips to go in for 
fresh bait or to take salt bait, and rely on what fresh bait you can catch 
at the Banks and stay out?—A. To stay out would be more profitable 
to me. 

Q. You admit that fresh bait is better side by side than salt bait ?—A, 
Yes. 


Q. Then what is the reason why you think it is better to stay out with | 


salt bait?—A. On account of the time you lose in going in and the | 


money it costs to get it. 
Q. To get it and keep it?—A. Yes. 
Q. Did you find it pretty expensive ?—A. I found it very expensive. 
By Mr. Davies: 
Q. For the last ‘sixteen years you have been fishing on your own 


shores, catching fresh fish for market?—A. Some parts of the season I | 


have. 

Q. Have you been cod-fishing portions of the seasons ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been on the Banks?—A, Yes. 

Q. From 1866 to 1876 I believe you were off your own coast catching 
fresh fish for market ?—A. Yes. 

Q. So that for those ten years you know nothing of the mode of fish- 
ing on the Banks from personal experience ?—A. No. 

Q. Previous to ten years ago, the system of fishing with fresh bait had 
not come into vogue, had it ?—A. Yes, I think it had before ten years 
ago. 

Q. Do you think that before ten years ago Bank eiisleriion were 
accustomed to take fresh bait or to run in to the coast for it ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ever try it yourself ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you go ‘for fresh bait ?—A. Round Cape Sable, and 
round to a place called Pubnico. 

Q. Did you fish on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland at all?—A. 
Not at that time. 

@. You never fished with fresh bait there ?—A. No. 

You don’t know ‘anything about running into Newfoundland for 
fresh bait ?—A. No. 

Q. You were on Georges Banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you run in from Georges Bank for fresh bait ?—A. Yes. 

o Have you got any memorandum of the results of the voyages ?— 
A. No. 

Q. You cannot remember them ?—<A. No; I did not think it was nee- 
essary. 

@. And you cannot tell, of course, what the results were ?—A. No. 

@. And therefore you don’t know whether one was better than the 
other?—A. I remember going into Cape Sable for bait to goon Banquero 
after halibut and codfish. I cannot remember the name of the harbor 
where we went; it is a great place to go and get fresh bait. 

Q. How many times did you run in for fresh bait from the Georges ?— 
A. About a dozen times. 

Q@. In one season ?—A. In different seasons. 


Q. Have you ever gone and fished on the Georges solely with salt | 


bait !—A. No. 
Q. Or anywhere else—on the Grand Banks ?—A. Yes, I have on the | 
Grand Banks. 


ae How many seasons were you on the Grand Banks ?—A, Two or 
three. 


|| 


q a - 
P : 
Fi 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2725 

Q. When was that ?—A. I don’t remember the year; some time dur- 
ing the ten years. We made one trip there. We would go in the win- 
ter market fishing, and in the summer would make a trip to the Banks. 

Q. During the last 14 years you have never been in Bay St. Law- 
rence fishing ?—A. I think I was there in 1873 in the Franklin 8S. Schank. 

Q. That isa memorandum you made up from your memory 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Refer to it again. You stated in answer to Mr. Dana that 1863 
was the last year you were in the bay ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Then for the last fourteen years you have not been in the bay fish- 
ing?—A. No. 

Q.. Then you know nothing about where the fish were caught during 
those fourteen years?—A. No. I cannot answer it exactly, because my 
figures don’t agree. My dates don’t agree with my conscience. I have 
_ got it that I was there in 1873 in the Franklin S. Schank, and you have 
put it at 1863. I was in the Franklin 8. Schank in 1873. 

Q. Then you were not in that vessel in 1863 7—A. No. 

@. Where were you in 1863 ?—A. I must have been on our shores. I 

' took notes of the years when I was in the bay, but of the years when I 
_ was on our shore and at the Banks I did not. 

Q. Could you from your memory state accurately what years you 
were in the bay?—A. My memory fails me. I have not a good mem- 
! ory. , 

Q. You cannot tell from memory the years you were in the bay 7—A. 
| No, unless I were to sit down and think it over. 

Q. Irrespective of that one trip in the Franklin S. Schank in the fall of 
| 1873, you have not been in the bay for fourteen years ?—A. No. 

Q. During all those years you do not pretend to say where the fish 
| were caught ?—A. I donot. 

Q. As to the Franklin 8. Schank, what became of her?—A. She was 

owned in Rockport. | 

Q. Was she not seized ?—A. Yes. 

'Q. In what year?—A. The year she was built. I don’t remember 
| what the year was. She was seized and went to Quebec. 

Q. Was she sold ?—A. Yes, and the parties bought her back. 

Q. What was she condemned and sold for ?—A. For net fishing within 
' the limits. 

Ng She was sold and condemned ?—A. Yes; that was before I wenti in 

Q. She was bought back and then you went in her?—A, Yes. 

Q. What time of the year did you come to the bay in her on the fall 
' trip in 1873?—A. About the 15th of September we left home. 

Q. I suppose you got down to the bay about the 25th ?—A. About 
| 20th or along there. 

Q. Where did you go?—A. We went to the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Is it customary for vessels to go to Magdalen Islands after. 25th 

September ?—A. It is. 

Q. I understood they generally left about 25th September or 1st Oc- 

tober 7—A. Some do not leave there till the weather blows them away. 
*Q. When is that ?—A. When the anchors won’t hold on the bottom. 

Q. When is that ?—A. About the last of November. 

~Q. Are you sure in stating that?—A. Yes. 

Q. That mackerel-fishing vessels remain there till the last ‘of Novem- 
ber ?—A. Yes; I staid myself. 

Q. In what year ?—A. I don’t remember the year. 

~Q. You-have not been there for 14 years ?—A. I know I have not. 


> 


2726 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Can you remember the name of the vessel you were in when you 
staid till the last of November ?—A. Roger Williams. 

Q. That was in 1862, was it?—A. Yes; we went adrift. We had to 
leave. 

Q. Can you remember the time ?—A. I cannot remember the time. 


Q. Was it the last of November 7—A. It was somewhere about the- 


first. 

Q. How do you mean you went adrift ?—A. We never stay in the bay 
till the last of November. We always reckon to be out of the bay by 
the 10th of November. 

Q. You mean the last of October 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not the first of October they leave the Magdalen Islands ?— 
A. About the last. 

Q. A witness (Mr. Cook) who preceded you said that from the 5th to 
the 10th of October they left there. Where else did you fish that year 
in the Franklin S. Schank ?—A. At East Point, Prince Edward Island. 

Q. How did you fish there; did you go inshore and drift out?—A. 
What we caught we caught to an anchor inshore. 

Q. Did you try fishing and drifting off?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were there any vessels with you?—A. There were not any the 
day we caught our mackerel. They were all in the harbor at Souris. 

Q. When you were fishing, drifting off the land, were there any other 
vessels there?—A. Yes. 

Q. Lots of them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many would you say ?—A. 30 or 40 sail. 

Q. All engaged in the same mode of fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is there not a larger fleet generally found off East Point than 30 or 
40 sail?—A. Sometimes there are more, and sometimes less. 

Q. Sometimes a good deal larger ?—A. That was about an average 
that year. 

Q. Can you remember, leaving out the Franklin S. Schank, what pro- 
portion of the mackerel which you caught in the bay fourteen years ago 
was taken within three miles of shore ?—A. I think about one-ninth part, 
as near as I could judge from the little experience I had. 

Q. Your experience was not much ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you ever fish about Seven Islands 7—A. No. 

Q. Nor in Bay Chaleurs ?—A. No. 

Q. Nor along the west shore of New Brunswick, from Miscou to Mir- 
michi ?—A. Off shore I have a little. 

Q. You have never tried within three miles of the shore ?—A. No; 
not off that sbore. 

Q. Did you fish round the bend of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes; 
I have tried there. 

Q. Did you ever try within three miles of the shore, except at East 
Point ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Whereabouts ?—A. Off St. Peter’s, New London Head, and alk 
along what we call the Sand Hills. 

Q. Did you try many times there ?—-A. Different times, yes. 

Q. And you always tried by going in and drifting off tA. No; the 
wind would not always allow us to do that. Sometimes we would ‘drift 
north and south. The wind would not always be right offshore, and it 
all depends on the wind. Sometimes we drifted along the shore ; some- 
times from north and south ; sometimes in and sometimes out. 


Q. The fleet all pursued the same mode of fishing ?—A. When I was 7 


trying along there I was always alone. I never happened to be in any 
fleet when fishing there. 


= 
— ; 


\ 
wa \ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2727 


Q. You never saw anybody else doing so?—A. I say I never tried 
with any fleet inside of three miles. 

Q. Did you ever see any other vessels fishing in that way within three 
miles of the shore at the island 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How could you see them ?—A, They were a distance off, trying 
along. 

@. There were vessels there besides you?—A. Yes. 

@. What did you mean when you said you were always alone 7—A. 
Away from the fleet. 

Q. Were there, or were there not, other vessels with you when you 
were so fishing ?—A. At a distance from me. 

Q. What distance out?—A. Perhaps five or six miles along the 
shore. 

Q. How many would there be ?—A. Ten or twelve going and coming, 
some one way and some another. As far as my eye could see I would 
see vessels. 

@. You saw vessels more or less all the time 7—A. Yes. 

@. You always saw them when off the shore ?—A. Most generally. 

Q. Is not the fleet accustomed to largely fish along there?—A. When 
they strike mackerel they generally bunch up. When they cannot find 


any they go flying all around the shores. 


Q. When they catch the mackerel schooling they bunch together, a 
good many of them?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. As high as 105 sail. 

Q. Round one school ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Catching mackerel off the island 7—A. I did not say off the island. 

Q. Did you not understand that my questions had reference to the 
north side of Prince Edward Island?—A. I did not understand you to 
Say within the three-mile limit. 

Q. Did you understand me to refer to the north side of the island 
when you spoke about the vessels being scattered about at one time, 
and then being together in a bunch?—A. I did. 

_Q. When you gave your answers to me you had reference to Prince 
Edward Island ?—A. I said I had seen 150 sail of vessels off the coast 
of the island. 

Q. And every time you have been there, you have seen vessels more 
fishing off the coast?—A. Sailing up and down and trying to 


° \ 

Q. And have you known any fish caught there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. As to distances from the shore; is there much difficulty in telling 
the exact distance you are off shore ?—A. Yes, I should judge there was. 

Q. A man might think he was three miles off when he was only two 
and a half, or he might think he was outside the limits when he was 
really very near the line of the limits, might he?—A. Yes. The way 
I have always found it is this: if we thought we were a mile and a half 
off shore, and we pulled to shore, we would find it three or four miles, 

_Q. Where used you to harbor at the island ?—A. I have been into 

about all the harbors there. We used to anchor a good deal to a lee. 


~ Q. Where ?—A. Off East Point. 


_ Q.. There is a good lee off East Point ?—A. Yes. 
_Q. You never had any difficulty in running round the point when the 
wind was from the northwest and getting a good‘lee ?—A. No. 

Q. And when the wind was from the other side you slipped round the 
point ?—A. Yes. 

Q. There is no difficulty about doing that ?—A. No. 

Q. It is perfectly safe?—A. No, it is not perfectly safe. 


2728 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Why not ?—A. Because when the wind comes to the eastward you 
have to get away. You have no lee when the wind is from the eastward. 

Q. What harbors can you go into ?—A. Into no harbor with a south- 
east wind. 

Q. You have not been there since the breakwater was built ?—A, I 
have not been there since 1873. 

Q. Do you know that a large breakwater has been built since then ?— * 
A. They were commencing to build a breakwater then, but only large 
enough for two or three whale-boats. 

Q. You have not seen the breakwater which has been built there at 
an expense of $60,000 or $70,000 ?—A. . No. 

Q. How can you say it was but sufficient to cover three or four whale- 
boats ?—A. It was not built when I was there. 

Q. Did you ever fish much about Margaree 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Within three miles of the shore?7—A. No. 

Q. Not off Margaree ?—A. I fished round Margaree. not within three 
miles of the shore. 

Q. You did not try there?—A. No; we were off shore. 

Q. You are sure of that ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Although it is sixteen years ago?—A. Yes. 

Q. Although you had the right to fish where you pleased during many 
of the years of which you have spoken. Did no other vessels do it ?— 
A. No. 

Q. How can you tell?—A. We could not find any when we were there. 

Q. You swear you never went in to try within three miles of the 
shore; is that the fact?—A. I don’t recollect of swearing I never went 
within three miles of shore to try. 

Q. At Margaree?—A. I don’t remember it. 

Q. Did you or did you not?—A. I don’t remember anything abont it. 
I don’t remember you asking me a question about Margaree Island. 

Q. Did you or did you not ever try to fish within three miles of the, 
shore at or about Margaree ?—A. I have. 

Q. Where and when ?—A. In different years. Almost every year I 
ever fished there we tried more or less. 

Q. And the fleet tried more or less?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do many of the fleet go there in the fall?—A. We went to Mar- 
garee, Port Hood, and Cape George; some part of the fall we would be 
up and down that coast. 


Q. Sometimes fishing within three miles of the shore and drifting off? « 


—A. They cannot be always drifting off, because the wind is sometimes 
blowing on shore. 

Q. When the wind is favorable, is that mode of fishing pursued ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. And they tried it every year?—A. Every year I have been there. 

Q. When the wind is favorable they try within the limits and drift 
off shore. That is the fact?—A. They try more or less inshore and 
drift off. 

Q. What the results of the vessels’ voyages were, you don’t know ?— 
A. No. 

Q. You kept on trying every year within the lines?—A. Occasionally 
we tried. 

Q. Is there not round Margaree Island itself very excellent fishing 
ground ?—A. I never found it so. 

(. Have you heard other fishermen speak of it as such ?—A. I have | 


heard of other vessels doing well there. It had been said there were 
| 


4 
—- . . 4 


AWARD OF THE FISIIERY COMMISSION. 2729 


mackerel there, but when we got there wedid not find any. i have 
heard from fishermen that they found fish there. 

Q. You never were in Bay Chaleurs?—A. No. 

Q. You don’t know anything about the fishing there ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you try there in 1873?—A. We tried there. 

Q. What did you catch there?—A. Nothing. 

Q. Did you ever try off Cape Breton shore ?—A. I never tried along 
the north shore of Cape Breton. We tried at the Magdalen Islands and 
Prince Edward Island. I understand you now refer to 1873. 

Q. You went to Margaree ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You tried once and did not catch any ?—A. Yes, and went away 
to Magdalen Islands. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Your memorandum is made up for the bay voyages only 7—A. Yes. 

Q. When did you make it up; before you came here ?—A. I made a 
kind of memorandum at home and copied it when I came here. 

Q. Were you in the bay some time in 1855?7—A,. Yes. 

Q. And in 1856?7—A. Yes. ; 

Q. And in 1858?—A. Yes. 

Q. State what years you were in the bay.—A. In 1854 in C. C., 
Davis; 1855, Racer; 1856; Belvidere; 1858, Sarah B. Harris; 1859, 
Trenton ; 1860, Trenton ; "1862, Roger Williams; 1873, Franklin 8. 
Schank. 

Q. Do you think that during these eight years you gave a fair trial 
to the inshore fisheries ?—A. Yes. 

(jy. And you found them to be of little value; you tried them in va- 


vious ways—drifting off sometimes, and anchoring and drifting off at 
_ other times, according to the wind ?—A. Yes. 


_ Q. And you know of no other way of drifting?—A. Yes. 
No. 64. b 


JOHN C. KNOWLTON, fisherman, of Rockport, Mass., was called on be- 
half of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 
- Question. Rockport is a town adjoining Gloucester; and in the same 


| Raritime district ?—Answer. Yes. 


Q. How old are you ?—A. I am 39. 
— When did you first go fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. In 

51 

Q. How many voyages in all did you make to the bay ?—A. Nine. 

Q. In what year did you make your last voyage there ?—A. In 1874; 3 
years ago. 

Q. Were you sbaresman or skipper ?—A. I was sharesman. 

Q. Who was skipper ?—A. Donald McDonald. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take?—A. I think we 
landed 430 barrels at Canso, where I left the vessel, which went back to 


_ the bay, while I returned home. 


Q. What became of her afterward?—A. She came home, I think, 
With about 575 or 600 barrels, including the 430 mentioned. 
Q. Was this not an unusually good catch for that year?—A. No; 


| there were vessels which did a great deal better than that. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Q. When was this ?—A. In 1874; 3 years ago. 


gi 
i a 


2730 AWARD OF THE FISHERY. COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Where were the mackerel taken which you caught ?—A. The first 
we caught were taken close inshore at the Miramichi Bar, or in other 
words, I might say, close to the mouth of Miramichi Harbor, where we 
went to make a harbor. 

Q. That is outside of Miramichi Bay ?—A. Yes. Our fishermen call 
it a harbor, where we can get round under the lee of the wind, and we 
can get round that bar and make a Boe: harbor with the wind ina cer- 
tain direction. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did a get there ?—A. Something 
like 30 or 40. I was then in the Grace L. Fears. We then came across 
off North Cape, and I think that we got some 60 or 70 barrels more be- 
tween there and North Cape, broad off shore. 

Q. At what distance from the shore ?—A. Well, I think 10 or 12 miles 
likely, or 15 miles. 

Q. Where did you go from there ?—A. We fished down off North Cape 
and around there; we tried for one or two days, and then we went up 
around West Cape and came back again. We principally fished up and 
down the island. 

Q. Did you fish up and down Prince Edward Island on the north © 
side ?— A. We did so on the east side. 

Q. What do you call the east side ?—A. The part between North Cape 
and East Point. 

Q. How far from the shore did you fish off the bend of the island ?— 
A. Well, with the exception of the time when we were coming out of 
Cascumpeque, we fish ontside of the three-mile limit. 

Q. How far from the shore ?—A. From 12 to 20 miles, I should say, 
or something in that neighborhood. 

Q. Measured from where ?—A. The main land. 

Q. From the extreme bend of the island ?—A. No; but from the near- 
est land opposite where we were. 

Q. You have told us the places were you fished that year within three 
miles of the shore?—A. Yes; with the exception of the time when we 
were coming out of Cascumpeque Harbor. We then got about 50 wash 
barrels. I think we might have hove to somewhere about, I won’t say 
within the three-mile limit, outside the bar, among the fishing boats, and 
drifted right off, so that, while doing so, we got about 60 wash barrels. 

Q. Which was the next previous year when you were in the gulf ?— 
A. 1872; I was then in the Waverley, Captain Tarr. 

Q. H ow many barrels did you catch ?—A. We brought home 230. 

Q. Where did you get them?—A. We caught part of them off 
Prince Edward Island, between East Point and North Cape, up and 
down the island—well, ‘from New London up off North Cape and broad - 
off the island. 

Q. How far from the shore of the island did you usually fish ?—A. I 
never was fishing within the limits with the exception of one voyage, 
and I caught very few mackerel there. 

Q. To what voyage do you refer ?—A. To the one I made in the Grace 
L. Fears in 1874. 

Q. Where else besides off the island did you fish in 1872 in the Wavy- 
erley 7—A. Between East Point and the Magdalen Islands, and up on 
Banks Bradley and Orphan; I also fished up and down the island, 10, 
15, or 20 miles up off North Cape. 

. What was the next previous year when you were in the bay ?—A. 
I will not be sure whether it was in 1868 or 1869. 

Q. Who was captain of the vessel ?—A. Mitchell. 


. 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2731 


Q. You have brought no memoranda with you ?—A. No; I could not 
make up any, as far as that goes, for that voyage. 

Q. All you have done is to put down what your recollection enables 
you to state ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have no books or anything to guide you in this regard 7—A. 


No. 

Q. What did you do while you were with Captain Mitchell?—A. We 
took 240 barrels of mackerel. ee 

Q. Where ?—A. On Banks Bradley and Orphan, and at the Magdalen 
Islands. 

Q. Did you get any of them anywhere else ?—A. No. 

Q. In what schooner were you in your next previous year in the bay? 
—A, The Laura H. Dodd. 

Q. During how many years were you in her?—A. Two; 1864 and 
1865. 

Q. How many trips did you make during each of these years ?—A. 
Two. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take in your two trips in 
1864?—A. About 700, I think. 

Q. Where ?—A. At the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Were any of them caught inshore, except at the Magdalen Islands? 
—A. No. . 

Q. Whereabouts at the Magdalen Islands were they caught ?—A. At 
Bird Rocks, principally. 

Q. Is that true of both trips ?—A. Well, during both, and more es- 
a during the first trip, we got a great many barrels at the Bird 

ks ; 


Q. Did you fish inshore anywhere ?—A. No. 

Q. The next year, 1865, you were in the Laura L. Dodd ?—A. Yes. 
_Q. And you made two trips?—A. Yes, 

Q. How many barrels did you catch ?—A. About b00, T think, 

Q. Where?—A. On Banks Bradley and Orphan, and at the Magdalen 
Islands and off East Point; and a few were taken up and down the island. 

Q. How far from land did you fish off East Point?—A. It might have 
been, I should say, 15 or 20 miles. 

Q. How far from the land was it 7—A. We were outside the limits, and 
from 10 to 20 miles off; no mackerel were to be got inshore at all. We 

tried inshore. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. You have not fished since 1874?—A. No; uot in the bay; but I 
_ have on our shore. 
Q. When was your last trip made before 1874 ?—A. In 1873. 
+ And when was your next and previous trip made—in 1872 ?7?—A. 
0. 
Q. Did you not state, in direct examination, that you fished in 1872. 
in the bay?— A. I believe I did not—yes; I was in the Waverley in 1872. 
Q. I thought you said that you came here without memoranda ?7—A. 
_I did not come with any; but I made a hasty sketch of my fishing ex- 
perience the other night when I was coming down here on the steamer. 
TL have nothing here that amounts to anything. 
Q. Do you recollect, in those memoranda, that you were in the bay in 
1872 ?—A. Yes. 
‘ _Q. In what vessel ?—A. The Waverley. 
_ Q. If L understood you rightly, in 1874, your last year in the bay, you 
caught over one hundred barrels inshore?—A. Yes. I would not say 


5 -s i 
_. 


Qae AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


over one hundred, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of one 
hundred. We caught fifty wash barrels off Cascumpeque. 

Q. What do you mean by “ wash barrels”?—A. A barrel of mackerel 
dressed just as we catch them, four or five buckets of water being poured 
on the fish. 

Q. Would that be equal to a barrel packed 7?—A. No; it takes about 
four wash barrels to make three packed barrels. 

Q. When did you go into the gulf in 1874?—A. We left Gloucester 
after the 4th of July—I think about the 8th. 

Q. And where did you go after you passed through the Gut 7—A. We 
went over to Souris, where we put ashore a couple of ladies, and then 
we worked along the island. 

Q. Did these girls belong to the island ?—A. Yes; we landed them in 
Yankee Cove. 

Q. Did you fish at Souris?—A. No. 

Q. Why did you not try there ?—A. Because the mackerel there were 
not good for anything; they were small and poor. 

Q. Were the boats fishing there ?—A. Some were, [ think. 

Q. Did you try there?—A. O, yes; while the boat was ashore with 
the girls we hauled the main boom out and threw over a little bait, but 


the mackerel we caught were not fat enough to grease the eyebrow of | 


a@ mosquito. 

Q. But the boats were fishing there?—A. Yes. 

Q. And still these mackerel were not fat: enough to grease the eye- 
brow of a mosquito ?—A. Yes. We afterwards went north, and we got 
better fish there and near Miramichi. 

Q. How many mackerel did you catch at Souris?—A. About fifty or 
sixty. 

Q. What did you do with them?—A. I do not know; but I guess 
that we ground them up for bait. 

Q. You would not put them in barrels at all?—A. No; we did not 
take any account of them at all. 


Q. Were those the kind which the boats were catching ?—A. I guess i 


they were. 


Q. Are you sure of that?—A. Iam not quite sure; but I guess the | 


fish were all alike around there. 

Q. Did you look at the fish which the boats were catching 7—A. Nu; 
we did not stop there, but we saw the boats catching fish. 

Q. On that occasion you lee-bowed the boats ?—A. 0, no; save our 
boat which put the ladies ashore. - 

Q. Did you not go in among the boats which were fishing off the 
shore 7—A. No; weran in there. 

Q. You ran in among the boats ?—A. No; but as we were going down 
from Yankee Cove, down by East Boint: we saw the boats off fishing. 

Q. Did you see what sort of fish they were catching ?—A. Yes; we 
could see them fishing, and I judge that they were catching just’ the 
same fish as we caught. 

Q. You threw bait over to catch poor fish ?—A. We threw alittle bait 
over and tried the fishing. 

Q. And then you drifted off shore ?—A. No; as soon as the boat came 
back we got under weigh; we threw bait over out of curiosity to find 
out what kind of fish they were and to see if they would bite. 

Q. And then you went on to North Cape ?—A. We went to the nor’- 
ard and worked up the island ; but we did not catch any fish. 


Q. Did you try while going up?—A. Yes; once in awhile we threw ~ 


over a little bait. 


——E——— OS |) ae 


1a 


} .- VO Se e 
ay or? 5 4 
é _ ‘ hd 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2733 


Q. Was this within three miles of the shore 7—A. No. 

Q. That was the only time that you caught any fish within three miles 
of the shore, until you reached Miramichi ?—A. Yes; then we fished off 
Miramichi Bar. 

Q. That was close inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And there you got about 40 barrels ?—A. Somewhere about 30— 
between 30 and 40 barrels. 

Q. It is as likely to have been 40 as 30 A. Possibly the number 
might have been 40. 

@. These were good fish ?—A. Well, they were better than the first 
ones which they caught. 

Q. You kept them ?—A. Yes; we salted them. 

q. They were fat enough to grease a mosquito ?—A. Well, yes; but 
not much more. The mackerel were very poor that year in the bay. 

Q. The whole time that you were there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. After that where did you fish?—A. Across over to North Cape, 
off French Village, and around off North Cape. 

Q. Close inshore ?—A. No; we never fished within the limits there. 

Q. Why; were you afraid to do so?—A. No. 

Q. Why did you not fish nearer the shore ?—A. Well, we saw plenty 
of fish off shore. I do not know any other reason for not doing so. I 
was not skipper of the vessel. 

Q. What was the size of your vessel?—A. One hundred and ten or 
120 tons. 

Q. What was her full fare ?—A. About 550 barrels. 

Q. How many did you actually take out of the bay?—A. We landed 
430 barrels at Canso. 

Q. To what number was the catch afterwards made np 7—A. To some- 
where about 600 barrels, I believe; I would not uel definitely on this 
point, but I believe they brought home about 600 barrels. 

Q. On her next trip ?—A. This was the whole catch including what 
we landed at Canso. 

Q. What was your object in landing them there?—A. They wanted 
to get back to the bay again. 

Q. You did not have a full cargo with 430 barrels 1A. I wanted to 
get home myself, and if I had been skipper, I should have taken the 
vessel home. 

Q. You did not have a full cargo then 7—A. Well, we had a very good 

' fare for the time; if they had taken care, we would have had more— 
probably 100 barrels more. 

Q. Why did the vessel not go straight home ?—A. I do not know; I 
was not skipper. 

Q. You do not know why these fish were landed at Canso?—A. I sup- 
pose that the captain thought, as I said before, that he would go back 
to the bay. 

_.Q. Were you one of the sharesmen ?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. You had then something to say about it?—A. No, not at all; the 
captain generally does what he pleases in this respect. 

aes Does he never consult with the men ?—A. He does not do so very 
0 . 

Q. On this occasion did he consult with the men?—A. No. 

__Q. Are you serious in saying that you do not know why you landed 
_ those fish at Canso?—A. No, I do not know. I wanted to go home, as 
far as I was concerned, and I did so. 

-Q. And he wanted to get back to the bay at once?—A. Yes, I sup- 
pose So. 


* 
- 
4 
>. 


2734 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Was not that the reason ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Why did you not say so before?—A. I say Ido not know the 
reason; there might have been other reasons. You might ask the rea- 


son why I went home, and I would say, I suppose, it was because I — 


wanted to. 

Q. But that is your own business ?—A. Yes. 

@. Do you not know that the captain knew he could make two trips by 
transshipping his cargo at Canso?—A. Well, under some circumstances 
he could do so. 

Q. And he could under those circumstances ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When the vessel came back in the fall with her second fare, did 
she take the barrels.which had been landed at Canso on board ?—A, 
Yes. 

Q. She just landed and left them there ?—A. Yes; until she returned. 

Q. I suppose that this was of considerable service to you?—A. Well, 
I do not know of any service that it was, unless it aided the captain’s 
desire to get back to the bay. 

Q. Does this not enable you to make two or three trips when other- 

-wise you could only make one trip ?—A. Well, sometimes it does. 

Q. How long would it take you as an ordinary rule to run from Canso 
to Gloucester ?—A. Well, I have gone home froni there and come back 
again in eleven days. 

Q. Is that the ordinary time consumed in this passage?—A. No; 
that is about two weeks. 

Q. Are not these two weeks very important during the fishing sea- 
son ?—A. Well, that all depends on circumstances. 

Q. If the circumstances are such that there is good fishing in the bay, 
is it not important to be there as soon as possible ?—A. No; during the 
last ten years, if I had been in the bay and got a trip of mackerel, I 
would have taken it home. 

Q. Suppose there is good fishing in the bay, is it not very important 
to get back there and save these two weeks ?—A. No; the wear and 
tear caused by leaving the fish round, and the leakage, causes a large 
percentage of them to be lost; and thus it is a disadvantage to land 
and leave them there. I would never consent to the landing of a cargo 
of mine at Canso. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that a large percentage of the pickle 
runs off there?—A. No; but it is bad for the fish to be left there, in 
some cases. 

Q. Was this the case with these particular fish in that particular | 
cargo ?—A. I think it was with some of them. 

Q. Will you swear that it was?—A. I will not swear that—no. 

Q. Why do you mention suposititious cases, unless this has really taken’ 
place? What did you get for your mackerel that year?—A. About 
$6.50 for number ones, I think. 

rs Was that the ordinary price that year ?—A. Yes; for bay mack- 
erel. 

Q. You got the highest price that ruled for the season?—A. No. 

Q. Then the fish were not injared in any way ?—A, I do not know 
that they were’ 

Q. You stated that 600 barrels was not an extraordinary catch that 
year, and that others did better?—A. Yes. 


. 


Q. There was good fishing in the bay that season?—A. Yes; espe- i 


cially around the island. 


Q. You mean inshore ?—A. I mean around the island, inshore and 
off shore. i . 


© 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2735 


Q. Did you fish at all at Margaree that year ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you fish off Cascumpeque and Rustico, on the northern shore 
of the island 7—A. Yes. 

Q.' Did you fish there after you got back from Miramichi?—A. Yes ; 
off Cascumpeque we did. 

Q. Inshore ?—A. When we were coming out of the harbor—we ran 
in there to make a harbor—we fished coming down. 

Q. Did you get good fish?—A. We got better fish than we found down 
off Souris. 

Q. How many barrels did you catch there ?—A. Somewhere about 50 
or 60 wash barrels; I could not give the exact quantity. 

Q. But they were good fish ?—A. They were as good as any in the 


y- 

Q. You have no respect as a rule for bay mackerel 7—A. Oh, yes. 

Q. Are there good mackerel in the bay ?—A. Yes; some years they 
are first rate and some years they are poor. 

Q. I suppose this is the case everywhere ?—A. Yes. 

Q. As a rule there is good fishing i in the bay 7—A. It is not as good 
as it is on our shore, as a rule. 

Q. Do you catch mackerel within the three-mile limit on your shore?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Will you swear to that?7—A. Yes; I so caught some myself this 
season. 

Q. Is it a usual thing to catch them there within the three-mile limit, 
or has this been the case during the last eight or ten years ?—A. I do 
not think that it is. 

Q. Then you do not wish the Commission to understand that your 
shore fishery is carried on within the three-mile limit?—A. No, not on 


the whole. 


Q. Your shore fishery is prosecuted from 10 to 15 and 50 miles from 
the coast ?—A. Yes; and 150 miles from it, off on George’s Bank. 

Q. That is what you call your shore fishery 7—A. Yes. 

Q. In point of fact no mackerel are caught as a rule within 3 miles of 
your shore ?—A. Oh, yes. | 
* Is there good mackerel- fishing there within the three. mile limit ?— 

Yes. 
i. And this always has been so?—A. Yes; there is some nice fishing 
ere. 

Q. And the American witnesses who have testified here that there is 
no fishing to speak of there within the three-mile limit are entirely mis- 
taken ?—A. Yes; I testify to my own experience. 

Q. When were you fishing within 3 miles of your shore in a vessel ?— 
9 Last summer, and for two days this summer. 

Q. Where did you so fish last summer ?—A. All up and down the 


bast of Maine, and right in within 3 or 4 miles of Monhiggin. 


Q. I am speaking of the three-mile limit—A. It might have been 3 
or 4 miles off shore. 
Q. Do you not know that this is a very vague statement? Will you 


_ Swear that you fished last year along your coast and caught = 


ptbin 3 miles of your shore?—A. Yes. 
- Q. To any extent ?—A. No, I won’t say that. 
Q. What proportion of your catch last year was taken within 3 miles 


. Of your shore ?7—A. Well, a very small proportion. I was only so fish- 


ing a very short time. 
_ Q. The great bulk of the catch off the American shore is taken from 


10 to 50 miles out ?—A. I do not know about that. 


P of ' 


2736 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You do not know whether this is the case or not?—A. I do not 
know about that matter. 

Q. What other time did you so fish along the American coast?—A, I 
so fish, more or less, most every season, for a short time, either in the bay 
or on our shore. 

Q. Did you do so this year ?— A. Yes, for a little while; about a fort- 
night. 

©. In what vessel?—A. In a dory and in a vessel of about forty tons. — 

Q. You did so in different vessels ?7—A. Yes; we went out on an ex- — 
cursion like. | 

Q. You were just out for a pleasure trip ?—A. Yes. |] 

Q. Do you not know that this is a rather serious matter ?—A. I had © 
just got home, and being obliged to wait a while on a certain business, 
I thought I would go out and catch a few fish. 

Q. Just for recreation ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How far did you go out ?—A. Well, not three gun-shots from the 

rocks. 
'  Q. Where ?—A. Off Cape Ann. 

. What did you catch 7?—A. Mackerel. 

Q. How many ?—A. One day I struck a barrel myself and I sappose 
the six of us got eight or nine barrels. 

Q. What did you fish with 7—A. Lines and hooks. 

Q. That was this year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that the mackerel fish- 
ery was first rate this year, off the American shore, within 3 miles of 
the coast?—-A. It was better inshore than off shore. It has been a very 
poor year; our mackerel-fishing has been very unsuccessful and the | 
fishing there has been better inshore than off shore. 

Q. Your fishermen have tried inshore this year 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. And still they have been very unsuccessful ?—A. Yes, and they 
have tried off shore. 

q. And there the fishing was worst ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That only shows that the mackerel have deserted your coast, both 
inshore and off shore 7—A. It appears there are plenty of fish, but they 
are so small that the fishermen do not want to catch them. 

Q. Do they catch them ?—A. They catch some, a certain percentage 
of them. 

Q. With what ?—A. Lines and seines. 

Q. As far as good fishing is concerned, there has been no fishing 
along your coast at all to speak of this year ?—A. No; but very good | | 
fish have been caught ov our shore this year. ; 

Q. Then the American market has to be supplied with mackerel from | ~ 
the bay this year?—A. I do not know about that, but I think thata | ~ 
small percentage, likely 25 per cent. of the mackerel in the American 
market will come out of the bay; I do not know that I would like to 
swear it would be that. 

Q. 25 per cent. will have to come in there from the bay ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then if the fishing has been very bad on your shore, where will 
the rest come from ?—A. From our shore. 

Q. And you say that there is no fishing at all on your shore this year? 
—A. Yes—where I say there is no fishing at all. 

(. And 75 per cent. will come in from your shore ?—A. Yes. 

(. How many barrels of mackerel do you think have been taken on , 
the American coast this year ?—A. I could not tell you. I could not 
estimate the quantity. 

Q. Do you know how many have come in from the bay ?—A. No. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2137 


Q. Will you tell me how you estimate this—that about 25 per cent. of 
your supply will come from the bay and 75 per cent. from your shore, 
if you do not know the number caught ?—A. I do not know definitely ; 
I do not say that 25 per cent. would come from the bay but it would be 
about that—25 or 30 per cent. 

Q. How is it possible to give a percentage if you do not know the 
number of barrels caught ?—A. I have not made an estimate of the 
number; I make up this estimate from what I have seen of vessels 
coming in from the bay and from the boat fishing. 

Q. Do you mean to say that you have come here to make this state- 
ment based on no certain knowledge of any kind, and that under these 
circumstances you swear to the percentage that will come from the bay, 
when you do not know the number of barrels of mackerel which have 

been caught in the bay ?—A. No; I do not confine myself to any per- 
centage ; but I give the best estimate I am able to form in this relation. 

Q. Is it to make a statement concerning matters about which you do 
not know anything that you presume to come here and give the per- 
centage that will come into the American market from the bay, and the 

_ percentage that will come from your own shore, without knowing what 
_ the catches have been in the bay, and on the American coast? Can any 
' man in his senses make a percentage without any basis for it?—A. I 
got it by inquiring from parties who had been there. 

Q. Tell me how many barrels did you learn from inquiry had been 
taken on the American coast ?—A. I cannot tell you. 

Q. How many, did you learn from your inquiries, were taken in the 
/ bay?—A. Well, a large portion of the mackerel which has been caught 
| this year in the bay has been taken by your boats, and they come into 
our market. When I speak about mackerel coming into our market 
from the bay, I mean that your folks ship them. 

Q. I want to find out how many barrels these people told you came 
_ from the bay, so as to enable you to form an opinion as to the percent- 
age?—A. Well, I would not confine myself to any rule about that mat- 
ter. 

Q. In point of fact, after swearing that 75 per cent. of. the mackerel 
will come from your shore, and 25 per cent. from the bay—— A. I beg 
_ your pardon. 

Q. [ take it that in giving me an answer to any sort of a question, 
you are swearing to such answer ?—A. I did not speak so precisely. 

a yon understand that you are answering questions under oath?— 
es. . 

Q. Will you tell me what earthly basis you have for saying that only 
25 per cent. of your supply of mackerel would come from the bay, and 
75 per cent. from your own coast ?—A. I say so from information that I 
have gathered from parties who have been there. 

Q. What information is that?—A. It is that there has been a large 
catch of mackerel taken by the boats, up and down and around the 
island ; it has been a very large catch, an exceedingly large catch, and 
an unusually large catch. I do not know whether this is so or not; I 
have not seen the catch, but it ig on that report that I base my estimate. 

Q. And because there has been an unusually large catch in the bay, 
you say that 25 per cent. of your supply would come thence ?—A. I 
Mean the catch by the boats—the small boats—and not by our fisher- 

, men. 
Q. And this mackerel goes to the American market ?—A. Yes. 
Q. You have heard this, and do you give that as a reason why only 


172 F 


, | 
2738 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
25 per cent. of your supply should come from the bay, and 75 per cent. | 
from your own coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I could understand it if you reversed the percentages ?—A. If you 
saw 500 sail of seiners off Cape Ann, you would begin to think that 
though they all got only 100 barrels apiece, still a great many fish 
would be taken. 

Q. Did all these vessels get 100 barrels apiece 7—A. I do not think 
that they did ; I say, if they did. 

@. Will you swear that 15,000 barrels of mackerel have been caught 
on your coast this year?—A. Yes, I swear so; I have not seen the 
figures to make up statistics on, but I make them up on my own judg- 
ment; yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see the fish being taken 7—A. No; only partially. Isaw | 
some taken. | 

Q. You are speaking at random altogether 2—A. I have no statistics. 

Q. Because you saw the seiners, you say that they must take so much 
without any inquiry as to the facts 7—A..I have seen them taking fish, __ 
more or less. | 

Q. Do you swear that 15,000 barrels have been taken on your shore 
this year A. Noy. would not swear that 15,000 barrels have been 
taken. 

Q. You will not swear what quantity has been taken ?—A. No; but 
to the best of my opinion 15,000 barrels have been taken. 

Q. Do you know what quantity has been taken this year on your 
shore ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know what quantity has been taken this year in the 
bay ?—A. No. 

Q. And all you know about the bay mackerel fishery is that an un- 
usually large catch has been made there this year?—A. Yes; by the 
boats. 

Q. And you admit that on your own coast this has been a very bad 
season ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And, therefore, because you have heard that in the bay there has 
been an unusually large catch, and because on your own coast there has 
been an unusually small catch, you think that your own coast will send 
in 75 per cent, of the mackerel to your market, as against 25 per cent. 
from the bay ?—A. I think so; that is my opinion. 

Q. In what vessel were you ip 1868?—A. The Veteran, I think. 

Q. Who was her captain ?—A. Mitchell. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you catch 7—A. Two hundred 
and thirty. 

Q. What was her tonnage ?—A. About 70, I think. 

Q. What was her full cargo ?—A. Three hundred or three hundred 
and twenty-five barrels. =, 

Q. Then you got pretty nearly a full fare?—A. We obtained a little 
over two-thirds of it. 

Q. Where did you fish?—A. Around the Magdalen Islands and on 
Banks Bradley and Orphan. 

Q. You did not attempt to go inshore?—A. No. 

Q. And, although you had not a full cargo, you fished about the places 
you have named, and did not go inshore to complete your cargo, although 
you hada license ?—A. Yes. 

. Why did you take out a license ?—A. We did not know where the « 
mackerel were when we got through the Gut of Canso, and so we thought 
we would take out a license. 

Q. Do 1 understand you to say that on coming into the bay you did 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. - 2739 


not know whether the fish would be inshore or off shore?—A. No; I 
never saw the mackerel inshore until I made my last voyage there. 

Q. Is it a fact, that you do not know when you enter the bay whether 
the fish are inshore or not ?—A. No. 

Q. You made your last voyage in the bay in 1874?—A. Yes. 

@. And that was the only time when you ever saw the fish inshore ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. If that was the case, what induced you in 1868, six years previously, 
to take out a license, when you did not want to go inshore at all?—A. 
There had been some trouble, and a license had been demanded once, I 
think. 

Q. When you had only fished off shore?—A. We did not know about 
the mackerel being inshore. 

Q. Is it not necessarily a privilege to be able to follow the mackerel 
when they run inshore in the bay and wherever they may go ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If successfal, is it not a privilege to be able to follow the schools 
wherever they may go ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In that view of the matter, the right to fish inshore in the bay is 
very important to the American people?—A. Yes. 

Q. Could they, in your opinion, successfully prosecute the fisheries in 
the bay without the right of going inshore to fish?—A. As far as my 
experience goes, I think that this is not necessary. We always got the 
principal part of our fish off shore; and I think the off-shore fisheries 
alone could be prosecuted snecessfully. 

Q. Did you not tell me just now that it was a great privilege for the 
Americans to be able to follow the schools inshore 7—A. Yes; that isa 
benefit to a certain degree, I think. 

Q. Did you not tell me that this was a great privilege ?—A. Well, it 
is a privilege. 

Q. And a valuable privilege ?—A. Well, it is a privilege worthy of a 

» eertain amount of consideration. 

Q. Js it or is it not a valuable privilege ?—A. It is valuable to a cer- 
tain extent. 

_Q. To what extent is this the case ?—A. Well, I could not say. 


By Mr. Foster: : 

Q. Have you seined in United States vessels off our-coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When ?—A. Last year. 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you get ?—A. About 250, taken 
in six weeks; we got about 100 in one haul. 

Q. You did not have very good luck ?—A. The vessel had not done 
anything previously. 

Q. Did you ever seine during any other year ?—A. Yes; I did so the 
year before, but I oniy seined a short time; about four weeks. 

Q. You speak of seeing alarge number of seiners together ; but where 
have you seen as many as 500 vessels fishing at once with seines or 
hooks off the American coast ?—A. I saw them in Gloucester Harbor ; 
they had gone in there for a harbor. 

@. Where do these vessels usually fish ?—A. I never saw that num- 
ber fishing together ; they fish all scattered around the coast. 


2740 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 65. 


WEDNESDAY, October 17, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


JAMES H. MYRICK, fish-dealer, of Boston, was called on behalf of 
the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster : 

Question. Where were you born ?—Answer. At the town of New- 
castle, State of Maine. : 
Q. And your home is in the Dorchester district, Boston 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Where do you earry on your fishing business ?—A. Chiefly at Tig- 
nish, Prince Edward Island; that is the part of the business which I 
look after and represent. 

Q. Who is your partner 7—A. Isaac C. Hall. 

Q. Your firm’s name is Hall & Myrick ?—A. Yes. 

Q. During how many years have you constantly resided, for a portion 
of the year, on Prince Edward Island ?—A. About 17. 

Q. During how much of the year do you stay there ?—A. Usually 
from three to six months. 

Q. At what part of the island ?—A. Tignish. 

Q. Where is Tignish situated ?—A. About eight miles from North 
Cape, Prince Edward Island. 

Q. Describe the business which you carry on there.—A. Well, we 
have a large retail store there, and we supply fishermen and boats, and 
occasionally vessels; we buy and cure fish, and ship fish. We buy pro- 
duce and we ship produce, but the fish business is the principal busi- 
ness which we Carry on. 

Q. How many fishing stages are there under your personal super- 
vision, and where are they situated ?—A. Well, I have had four this 
season ; two of them are situated on the east side of North Cape, and 
two on the west side of it. Weare near North Cape, and it is but five 
or six miles across. 

Q. How many boats do you employ 7—A. We have the product chiefly 
of about 150 boats; we employ directly 50 boats, and, in addition, we 
supply parties who own, perhaps, 100 boats, and obtain ane product of 
these boats. 

Q. How many men are employed in these boats ?—A. They average 
about three each; perhaps at some seasons of the year the number will ° 
be a little larger. 

Q. Over what extent of shore are these 150 boats located ?—A. About 
30 miles. 

Q. During the fishing season how often do you go over these 30 
miles ?—A. I might say, I do so almost daily, so that I can see that 
distance along shore, that is during the busy season. I keep a house at 
Tignish during the summer. 

Q. And is your house there so situated as to command a view of the 
water 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How is your store there situated ?—A. Itis directly near the water’s 
edge, a stone’s throw from the water. 

@. How many barrels of mackerel have been sent this year from your 
part of the island and your stations?—A. What I have shipped and 
what I will ship, but has not yet gone forward, will amount to about . 
4,600 or 4,700 barrels, for my part. 

Q. That does not include what Mr. Hall, of Charlottetown, will send 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 27Al 


to market ?—A. No; this is just for these 4 stations, and what I gather 
in from surrounding boats. : 

«. How many barrels in all did you send from your own stations last 
year ?—A. A little over 2,000. 

Q. The catch is better this year than it was last?—A. Yes; very 
much better. 

Q. Have you any vessels fishing ?7—A. Not from that point, anything 
to speak of; we have, however, some very small vessels, which are little 
larger than boats. 

@. Describe the size and character of those boats of yours.—A. They 
vary very much; a small proportion of them are what I call large boats, 
which will go off for three or four days, or for perhaps a week; and on 
which the men can cook and sleep. They are open boats, but still large 
enough to accommodate three or four men, for cooking and sleeping on 
board, and salting fish. A small portion of them are of that character, 
and the size of the others varies from that down to small boats of 15 and 
16 feet keel. Some of the boats go out and in perhaps two or three times 
aday; and others will go out and remain out a week. 

Q. Describe the way in which these boats of yours fish in the different 
parts of the season; how far from the shore do they usually go to catch 
mackerel? Tell all you know about that, from what falls within your 
personal observation.—A. It is customary for these boats to start early 
in the morning, and perhaps they will go off shore for a mile or 14 miles, 
and come to try for mackerel, and throw out bait; and if they do find 
mackerel there, why they stay there; but if they find few mackerel, or 
none there, they go out farther. Some will scatter off, while one or two 
may fish within oue or 14 miles of the shore, another boat will go half a 
mile farther out, aud another half a mile farther still—they scatter in 
that way. There is no uniform rule for taking up their places; but this 
is generally the way they do. Sometimes, when they find a school, all 
the boats will gather in together; but if they merely pick up mackerel, 
they may be half a mile, a mile, or two miles from the shore—stretched 
out along the shore. 

Q. How far is the farthest distance from the shore to which these 
boats usually go?—A. They will go out perhaps for 7—7 or eight miles ; 
7 miles, I should say, would be about the greatest distance, speaking for 
the point where I am located. This varies in different parts of the island. 
At some points on it they find the fish plentiful quite near the shore, 
and then, perhaps, 15 or 20 miles along the shore from that point, you 
will have to go farther out to find them. I suppose that this depends 
somewhat on the character of the bottom and of the curves and tides ; 
that is the way they fish. In the warmest weather, in midsummer, the 
fish are nearer inshore in my experience, and towards the fall the fish- 
ermen have to go farther out for them. When the weather gets pretty 
Tough in the fall the small boats do not go out, but the larger boats go 
off longer distances. 

Q. How far out did the boats go during the past month?—A. During 
the past month I have not been aware of any fish having been caught 


on the east side of North Cape, except 4 or 5 miles out; but on the other 


side of North Cape, the west side, they were taken nearer inshore; this 


is almost always the case in the fall—on the one side the fish are then 


en at a longer distance off shore, while on the other side they are 
quite handy. This depends on the wind; a west wind drives the fish 
on shore on the one side and off shore on the other. They go with the 
wind, I think. © 
_ Q. Do these boats usually fish drifting or at anchor ?—A. They almost 


2742 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


always fish at anchor, and very rarely drifting, unless it is at a very 
moderate rate. 

Q. Do these boats catch their mackerel from the bottom or the top of 
the water ?—A. They may sometimes have to take longer lines and fish 
from the bottom; and then again the fish may come for a little while 
up to the surface. I think that this season—during the latter part of 
it particularly—the men have fished nearer the surface; the fish have. 
come up, but they have been very delicate about biting; it was hard 
to make them bite any way; they came up around the hooks and ate up 
the bait that was thrown to them; but they did not like the look of the 
hooks, and they avoided them. 

Q. What bait do you furnish your boats with 7—A. Herring mostly, 
and sometimes pogies and menhaden. 

Q. Which is the better bait 7—A. Pogies. 

Q. Why do you not use them altogether ?—A. They come more ex- 
pensive; we have to get them wholly from the States, and they are too 
expensive for boat-fishing ; and then this is lighter bait, it floats on the 
surface. It is fatter, and it keeps the fish from going down. 

Q. You have seen, I suppose, the United States fishing schooners fish- 
ing off your part of the coast ?—A O, yes. 

Q. At what distance from the shore do they fish ?—A. Of course this 
varies at different seasons; but as a general thing the mackerel that are 
caught inshore are smaller than those which are taken outside. Now, 
this season, I have known vessels come in, but not a great many, and 
fish near the shore, within two or three miles off, fish awhile, and get a 
few mackerel, and on finding what their quality was, go off somewhere 
else; sometimes, however, they get better mackerel inside. 

Q. Do the United States schooners usually fish as near the shore as 
the boats ?—A. No; this is not the case at the point where I am located 

—decidedly not. 

-  Q. How is it that the boats can fish successfully where the vessels 
cannot do so?—A. Well, a boat will go out and anchor down; throw 
over bait and take it very leisurely, sticking perhaps in the same spot 
all day, or for a good many hours, and pick up a few mackerel, while a 
vessel will come along, and finding the same kind of fishing, will not 
think it worth while to stay there, but go off; then, again, I have in- 
formation as to a great many instances of vessels coming and finding 
boats picking up mackerel pretty freely, and throwing bait, and stay- 
ing for half an hour or an hour and not catching any mackerel, go off; 
that has been my experience for a good many years. I have been out 
with the boats for half a day’s fishing and seen it. 

Q. Do the vessels ever fish from the bottom as the boats do 7—A. Not 
often, but they will do so sometimes. When they cannot find fish any- 
where else, they may come among the boats, put their anchors down, 
and spring up, as they call it, and catch a few mackerel; but they do 
ae make a practice of it, as a general thing. They may do this some- 

imes. 

Q. Taking the past few years, say the past four or five years, to what 
extent have United States vessels fished under your observation within 
3 miles of the shore ?—A. Well, during the past four or five years, and | 
during the past three years particularly, the fleet of American vessels 
around the island has been quite small; this has been more particularly 
the case since the great storm. They have rather avoided fishing near , 
that part of the island since then. 

Q. What do you mean by the great storm 7?—A. I refer to the storm 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2743 


we had in 1873—the August gale, which wrecked so many American 
schooners about the island. 

Q. As you have been on the island every year for something like sev- 
enteen years, you must have heard discussions as to the three-mile limit, 
and so on?—A. Yes; I have heard a good deal said about it. 

Q. Has your attention been drawn to estimate the distance from the 
shore at which the three. mile limit lies ?—A. Yes; I think that my judg- 
ment is pretty good on that subject. 

Q. During how many months are your vessels employ ed in fishing 7— 
A. Well, cod and mackerel are caught for about 43 months in the year, 
on an average. 

Q. And how long are mackerel caught ?—A. For about 35 months. 

Q. What is a good catch of mackerel for one of your boats during the 
season ?—A. I consider 75 barrels a fair average; indeed, this is a very 
good catch for the average. 

Q. For three men ?—A. Yes. ; 

Q. And what would you regard as a good catch for a single day ?—A. 
Well, L shall say two barrels, from 2 to 24 barrels; and this is better 
than ‘the average. 

Q. Where do all your fish go?—A. To Boston and New York, but to 
Boston more particularly. 

Q. What is the largest number of barrels of mackerel which ever went 
from your port to Boston during one year ?—A. Something under 7,000, 
perhaps 6,800. 

Q. Was that from you personally or from your firm ?—A. That was 
from me personally ; that was the catch for one year; but I do not think 
that it all went down the same season. 

Q. But it all went down earlier or later 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Has the boat-fishing been increasing since you began to go to the 
island ?—A. Yes; it has increased very materially. 

Q. And how has this been for the last few years, say since July, 1873? 
—A. It has been increasing a good deal since then. 

Q. What kind of a year was last year for mackerel?—A. The catch 
was very smali and light. 

Q. For boats and vessels ?—A. Yes; for both. 

Q. Did any vessels that came to fish i in the gulf last year make any 
money at all?—A. I made inquiries in the States, and the result of what 
leould gather was that there was pot a vessel which visited the bay 
last year that made any money. 

Q. Do you know how the vessel-fishing has been in the bay during 


| the present season ?—A. Well, Ido somewhat; as I stated before, a few 


vessels have been around the part of the island where I am located. I 
have seen some vessels there, but the number has been small. 

Q. As far as you know, what has been the result of the vessel-fishing 
in the bay this season iar Well, 1 should think it has been light— 
quite a small catch. 

Q. How has it been with the boats?—A. They have made a very fair 
catch this season; this has been above the average considerably, I 


' should think. 


7 
ar. 
“« y 


Q.. During the Reciprocity Treaty, that is, prior to 1866, were many 
Vincial vessels fishing for mackerel ?—A. Well, about Prince Edward 

d, there was then quite a fleet of vessels. 
*Q. After the Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated, what became of 
them tA. Well, they gradually abandoned that business, so that at 
the present time they have very few vessels of any considerabe size fitted 


2744 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


out for mackerel-fishing in the gulf; that is, from Prince Edward Island, | 
I do not know how it is in this respect with Nova Scotia. 

Q. And there are none now there ?—A. The number of vessels of any 
considerable size there is now very few. 

@. Do you know of any there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Name them.—A. There is one, the Lettie, which my partner fits 
out at Charlottetown; she has always been engaged in that business. | 
She goes fishing for two or three months in the year. I do not know of | 
any other, though I have understood that some others have been fitted 
out after this purpose. 

Q. What view did you and your partner take with regard to securing | 
the fishery clauses in the Treaty of Washington ?—A. Well, we were | 
very anxious to have free fish. My partner took a more active part in 
this relation; he had more opportunity than I had for doing so. 

Q. He went to Washington 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. You did not ?—A. No. 

@. What was the effect on your business of the termination of the 
Reciprocity Treaty, and the imposition of a duty on Canadian mackerel 
entering the American market 7—A. Well, I cannot answer that ques- 
tion further than by saying that they had a very disastrous effect on 
our business. 

Q. Did you begin to feel the full effect of it at once, or did this take 
some time ?—A. No; during two or three years afterward we got avery 
good quality of mackerel, for which we obtained pretty good prices, so 
that we could afford to pay the duty. 

Q. Were these currency prices?—A. Yes. Prices then ruled pretty 
high; that was a time when the price of everything was somewhat 
inflated. 

q). I suppose that you may say either that prices ruled high or that 
currency then ruled low?—A. Yes; you can look at it either way. But 
when we reached the year 1871, I think a good large catch was then 
taken on the American shore, and a catch of poorer mackerel on the 
island shore, and then matters turned the other way with us. Prices 
were very low, and we suffered accordingly. 

Q. What became of your business, in view of that large catch on the 
United States coast 7—A. Prices went down very low, and we lost money 
very fast. Prices collapsed that year completely. 

Q. What would be the effect upon the business of your firm of putting 
back the former duty of $2. barrel upon mackerel sent from Prince’ 
Edward Island to the States? I would like you to explain your views 
in this regard particularly.—A. Well, I suppose, since we have got our 
business established there, and our buildings and facilities for carrying 
on the fishery, it would be difficult for us to abandon it altogether, but 
we would then turn our attention more particularly to cod-fishing, until | _ 
at any rate the mackerel season got well advanced and the mackerel | | 
became fat, and if any would bring a high price it would be those taken 
in the latter part of the season. We might catch some of them, but |_ 
we would not undertake to catch poor mackerel to compete with those | 
caught on the American shore. 

Q. Explain why not.—A. Well, No.3 mackerel, which are poor mack- | | 
erel, generally bring a good deal less price than fat mackerel, and men || 
do not catch any more poor mackerel than they do fat ones; the cost of 
catching them and of barreling and shipping them is the same, while. 
the fat mackerel bring a better price. We could carry on the cod-fishing | 
business irrespective of the American market ; we could catch, cure, and | 
ship codfish to other markets—to the West India markets, and we might 


. 


} 
i 
| 

i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | 2745 


make a fair business at that; but as to catching mackerel exclusively 
under such circumstances, it would not do to depend on it af all. 

Q. How does Prince Edward Island mackerel compare in point of size 
and quality with those which are caugbt at the Magdalen Islands?—A. 
Well, in the reports I have heard of vessels fishing at the Magdalen 
Islands and at the point where the mackerel are sold, they speak of the 
Magdalen Island mackerel as being much better and larger; that is, for 
the greater number of years. 

Q. Of late years, where have the best No. 1 mackerel been taken 
chiefly?—A. These are taken on the American shore; they suit the 
better class of customers and bring the highest price. 

Q. Is there an inspector of mackerel on the island?—A. Yes. 

Q. Are you a deputy inspector ?—A. Yes; my name is on the barrels 
as deputy inspector and I pay my fees to the inspector.general. 

Q. Who is he?—A. His name is Frank Arsenault; he lives in Prince 
County. 

Q. What do you pay him ?—A. I think it is somewhere about 2 cents 
a barrel; it is not a very heavy fee. 

Q. Mr. Davies says that you are mistaken about that?—A. My books 
show that we have paid it every year, whether it is 4 mistake or not. I 
obtained permission some years ago to act as deputy inspector, and I 
have paid my fees. 

Q. Every year since?—A. Yes, every year since, I think. I think my 
books will show that I have paid the fees every year, for five or six 
years. ; 

Q. You have paid two cents a barrel?—A. Yes, somewhere about 


that; between two and three cents. 


Q. Is there any sort of doubt about your brand as inspector of mack- 


,{ erel?—A. No. 


Q. Describe exactly what you put on the barrels.—A. The brand is 
circular; the first words are, “ Prince Edward Island,” and the next, I 
think, are, ““ Two Hundred Pounds—J. H. Myrick, Deputy Inspector.” 
I think this covers the whole brand. 

Q. Then you are deputy inspector de facto, whether there is law for it 


_ or not?—A. I do not know what the law is about it; but I know that I 


have paid my fees to the inspector-general. We have had a running 
account with this man, and we have given him credit every year, on the 
Settlement, for his fees. I do not know that we are compelled to pay 
such fees; but I know that these have been paid; that he bas had 
credit for them-in his account every year, I think. He calls for the re- 
turns and we give them to him. 

Q. Do you make returns of your mackerel ?—A. Yes; to the general 
inspector, when he calls, and he generally calls in the winter time. 

Q. To this same gentleman ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The fish go in that way to Boston ?—A. Yes. 
_Q. Now, in point of fact, are a good many of your mackerel reinspect- 
ed and culled after they are sold in Boston?—A. Well, I do not know 
about that, but this may be the case; that is a pretty difficult question 


_ to answer. I hardly know whether this is the case or not, because I am 


not there except in winter, and I do not know whether they go through 


_ another inspection or not. This is not necessary, but it may be done. 


A dealer may buy 100 barrels of mackerel and then put them in half 
barrels, and in that way have them inspected, but I do not think that 
he culls them. 


_ Q. Some evidence has been given here as to imported mackerel being 


thus gone over, culled, and reinspected, so as to make them more sal- 


2746 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


able and the average better than they are when they come in, in the 
foreign importation ?—A. I do not think that this makes the mackerel 
more salable, but perhaps some dealer there may consider such barrels 
of mackerel, when number twos, good enough for number ones, and pack 
them in half barrels and then have them branded number ones. 

Q. In Boston ?—A. Yes. This may be done; I have no doubt that it 
is done. 

Q. For the very best mackerel, what they call mess mackerel, the fat- 
test and the best, how extensive is the market in the United States at 
high prices? How many barrels of mackerel, costing $20 a barrel, and 
from that upward, would the United States market take ?—A. It might 
take, I think, 6,000 or 8,000. 

Q. No more ?—A. At $20 a barrel I should hardly think that more | 
would be taken. 

Q. What becomes of it ?—A. Eight or ten years ago more might have 


been taken, because a dollar more a barrel was not then looked upon in 


the same light as at the present moment; but now that is not the case. 

Q. Where do these high costing mackerel go ?—A. To the cities chiefly, 
and hotels ; some private families possibly take a few, but I do not think 
that a very large proportion of them are used in New England. I think 
that a good many go to Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia; and to New 
York City particularly. 

Q. At high prices will the market take a large quantity of the com- 
mon grades of mackerel, which are used not in the way of luxury, but 
for food ?—A. This would depend somewhat on the catch of lake fish 
and herring; a good many are used South; and these come into com- 
petition, I sappose, with the herring fisheries. I should suppose that 
at the rate of $7 or $8 a barrel, the market would take a pretty good 
catch of mackerel, grades number twos and threes. 

Q. At what point will the purchase on a large scale of common mack- 
erel cease for consumption ?—A. I should think that if the common 
grades of mackerel went in price above $10 a barrel, it would go pretty 
hard if any considerable quantity of them was taken. 

Q. When you go to Boston in winter are you in the habit of going 
about and making inquiries touching matters connected with your busi- 
ness ?—A. Yes, almost daily. 

Q. You do not then have a great deal of business to do 7—A. No. 

Q. What is it that fixes the price of mackerel in the United States 
market ?—A. O, well, of course it is the supply and demand, as is the 
case with everything else. When there is a large catch of mackerel on 
_ the American shore, prices rule low; this isa very sensitive market. 
If a fleet of 500, 600, or 800 vessels are fishing for mackerel, and those 
interested get reports of the fleet doing anything, the market falls at 
once; and this is the case particularly when prices are any way inflated. 

Q. Has there been anything to interfere, during the last few years, 
with the demand for salt mackerel? Has this been as great of late years 
as it was formerly 7—A. The universal opinion among dealers in New 
York and Boston and other places is that the demand for salt mackerel | 
has fallen off a great deal. Of course, the number of inhabitants is in- 
creasing very rapidly, but the demand for mackerel has not increased 
in that same ratio, and there must be some cause for it. Probably the 
catch of lake fish has interfered somewhat with this demand, and ship- | 
ments of fresh fish by rail has been extending farther into the country | 
of late, besides. 

Q. How far west are fresh fish sent?—A. They are dispatched as far 
West as any one travels, I think, from what I have understood. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~ 2747 


Q. In what season of the year is the mackerel market most active ?— 
A. Well, my observation has been that during September and October 
and perhaps a part of August this is the case. 

Q. How has it usually been of late years in winter ?—A. Of late years 
it has been very quiet, much more so than was the case formerly. 

Q. You have had a long acquaintance with the fishing of vessels and 
boats; have you known trouble to occur frequently between them or 
not ?—A. Well, I have heard occasionally of vessels coming pretty near 
the boats, but the former very rarely ran foul of the latter; it has been 
several years since I have heard of any collisions of that kind, and any 
considerable complaint being made in this regard. 

Q. How many complaints of that sort do you suppose you have heard 
during the 18 years you have been on Prince Edward Island 7?—A. Many 
opinions prevail on this point among the boat fishermen; some will say, 


_ when they see an American fleet coming, that this is going to hurt their 


fishing, while others say that it may help them, owing to the throwing 
over of a large quantity of bait, which may attract the fish to the spot; 
others again say that the throwing over of a large quantity of bait drives 
the fish away. A great variety of opinions exist in this respect, and it 
is hard to form a correct judgment on the subject. 

Q. Have you known mackerel seining to be successful in the gulf 7— 
A. No, not as a general thing. I have known vesseis thus get a fare of 


| fish, but, as a general thing, it has been a failure. 


Q. What is the reason of this?—A. Well, I think one reason for it is 

due to the clearness of the water in the bay, and another is because the 

/ water where the mackerel frequent is shallow, and too shallow to admit 

of the use of the large seines which the fishermen are in the habit of 

using on the American shore; then again the character of the bottom 
in the bay—it is rapid and rocky—is such that it catches the seines. 

Q. It has been stated here that they could adapt these seines to shal- 
low water. What is your opinion on this point?—A. Well, I have 
heard that; but then again, I have heard it said that for mackerel, 
. Owing to its shyness, you want to be able to get a good way under them 

to thus bag them successfully ; if they see the twine, they make a rush 
to get out from under it; that is the reason which numbers give for not 
trying their seines in the bay. These seines have been a great deal 
enlarged, and made larger and deeper in order to enable the fishermen 
to get around and under the schools without frightening and disturb- 


‘ ing the fish. 


Q. So these seines have grown longer and deeper instead of sborter 


| and shallower?—A. Yes, a great deal. I do not know but that they 


now haye reached their maximum. 

Q. Is any considerable quantity of mackerel sold in the British 
Provinces ?—A. In my experience, such sales have been pretty small. 
I have, however, sold a few in Canada. 

Q. Have you tried the Dominion market ?—A. I have sold a few fish, 
but not many init. I have shipped fish here, and had them reshipped 
to the States via the lakes. 

Q. You have found that they could not be sold here ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How far have you sent them in Canada?—A. As far as Montreal. 

Q. No farther ?—A. I do not remember of sending them any farther. 

Q. Is there any market for fat mackerel, number ones‘ and twos, 

| xcept in the United States?—A. No; no considerable market; that is 
the market for mackerel, and particularly for fat mackerel. I suppose 
= rs hardly a fraction of the whole catch that goes to any other 
market. 


2748 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Where do the poorest grades go ?—A. These are used in the West 
Indies; but the fat mackerel do not answer for the West India market; 
it does not stand the voyage. I suppose that is the reason why they do 
not ship the best qualities ' there. 

Q. Suppose that the catch of mackerel in British waters suddenly 
ceased, and that none were there caught for a period of five years, what 
would be the effect thus produced in the United States market ?—A. 
Well, that would depend on how good a catch they would then have on 
the American shore. 

Q. What would be the proportion ?—A. I should suppose that the 
proportion of the supply which is caught in British waters would be, 
perhaps, one-fourth of the aggregate catch. 

Q. That is inshore, off shore, and everywhere ?—A. Yes; of the whole | 
aggregate catch on the United States and Dominion coasts, perhaps | 
one-quarter would be taken in British waters. Then, mackerel not being 
an indispensable article of food, I do not suppose that such cessation | 
would have a very great effect; particularly in view of the fact that 
prices, in my opinion, could not be forced very high, even with a small 
catch. 

Q. Which is the most important article of food in the United States, 
fresh or salt mackerel ?—A. I should say, fresh mackerel decidedly; 
there is a larger consumption of them; but then there are seasons in 
the year, as in winter, when people can get poultry of all kinds and fresh 
meats, when they do not care much about these fish. This is the com- 
plaint which fish-dealers make in this respect; farmers in particular 
prefer to use their own products to paying high prices for fish. 

Q. One witness told us that every American family put down a barrel 
of mackerel and a barrel of pork to live on during the winter; does that 
statement correspond with any opinion which you have on this subject ? 
—A. I do not know as to how it may be outside of the limits of New 
England, but I think that very few New England families lay in a bar- 
rel of mackerel for consumption. 

Q. Do you know what quantity of fish comes from the great lakes of 
the West ?—A. I do not; [ have heard the quantity stated quite differ- 
ently, but I have no data to speak from in reference to this matter. 

@. Have you had anything to do with herring caught at the Magda- 
len Islands?—A. Yes; we have had a good deal to do with them. 

Q. What did you procure them for?—A. So far as I have obtained | 
them, it has been chiefly for bait, but [ think that a good many of these * 
herring have been exported from Charlottetown to the West Indies 
and the States. 

Q. Have you bought or caught them ?—A. I have done both 

@. Did you send your vessels to the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes; 
with the means both for catching and buying herring. 

Q. At what rate can you usually have Magdalen Island herring de- 
livered on Prince Edward Island ?—A. Well, “for $1, or $1.25 a barrel, 
without the barrel. 

& Q. Would the barrel be worth $1?—A. The barrel and the salt for) 
packing would be worth about $1. 
Q. At what price, furnishing the barrels, can you obtain these fish — 
A. We then pay about $1 for them. 

(. Do you furnish your own salt ?—A. They are all salted. 

Q. And you can thus get them for that price ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What would be the effect of a duty of $1 a barrel on pickled her- 
ring, as to the possibility of their being sent from the Dominion to the | 
United States market ?—A. Well, if American vessels had no right to 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2749 


catch them at the Magdalen Islands, this might not affect their sale; 
bat if they then came into competition with what the American vessels 
caught, these fish could not be sent there. 

Q. Would this amount be a prohibition duty, in this respect ?—A. I 
should think so. 

Q. How was the removal of the duties on mackerel and other fish, 
through the Washington Treaty, regarded by the inhabitants of Prince 
Edward Island?—A. As far as my observation went, they were very 
eager to have this treaty, in this regard, go into effect; they thought 
that this would build up their business, and be of great benefit to them. 

Q. What effect, in your judgment, would a return of these duties 
have ?—A. It would have a very bad effect unquestionably. It would 
hurt the fisheries there, because a great many of the fishermen, and the 
best fishermen we have now, would then at once go on board of Ameri- 
can vessels, as they formerly did. A large number of the island fisher- 
men formerly fished in American vessels; and a great many of them 
_would under such circumstances go back, while they are now carrying 
on the boat fishery. 

Q. In your boat-fishing you use herring more than pogies, because 
the former are cheaper than the latter 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Can vessel mackerel-fishing be successfully prosecuted without 

) pogie bait?—A. I do not know but that it might; but they never use 

\anything save pogies. As far as I have learned it is very rare when 

they do otherwise. I have in one or two instances heard skippers say 

_ ‘that if they used herring, and a great deal more of them, perhaps they 

| could get just as good trips as with pogies; but one might say that and 
a hundred might say the opposite. 

Q. Have you the prices of mackerel with you 7?—A. I have them for 
_a few years—perhaps for the past five or six years. 

Q. What are they ?—A. These are the net sales of mackerel in Boston 
' market. 

Q. Are they the actual result of your business derived from your 
‘books ?—A. No; I cannot exactly say that. This is merely an esti- 
mate. ; 

Q. Mention the prices—A. In 1876, last year, the average net value 
of mackerel at the island was about $9, as the result of sales in Boston. 

Q. That is what you realized 7?—A. This is about what we realized for 
the catch. 

+ Q. Give the other prices.—A. In 1875 we make it about $11; in 1874, 
about $7.25; and in 1873, about $11.50. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 
Q. Are these the average prices for all grades?—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Foster: © 


Q. Continue the list—A. In 1872 such price was about $8, and in 
1871 it was about $4.10. 

Q. What do you mean by net price ?7—A. This is the result after the 
= freight, duties, commissions, wharfage, and other expenses are 
settled. 

Q. The barrels and salt excepted ?—A. We do not take that. When 
we ship a barrel of mackerel it is all barreled up and ready for market. 

Q. The mackerel catch of Prince Edward Island for last year, 1876, is 
/eStimated in the report of the Dominion commissioner of fisheries at 
25,383 barrels, and the export of mackerel for the same year is estimated 
at 9.3474 barrels. Then, of course, 16,000 barrels must have been con- 
| Sumed at the island, if these figures are correct; and I want to know 


4 
ei, 
‘a : 
i i... 


coe | 
: “= 
sa 


2750 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


how far this corresponds with your belief ?—A. Well, I think that the 
figures for the exports are not accurate, because I believe that some 
mackerel were exported for which the figures have not found their way 
into the custom-house returns. 

Q. What do you think that such exports from Prince Edward Island 
amounted to for 1876?—A. 11,000 or 12,000 barrels; I would not say 
that they exceeded 12,000. 

Q. Are you confident about that ?—A. I feel very confident about it, 
but I cannot speak positively in this respect. 

Q. Explain what your opportunities for obtaining knowledge on that 
subject are?—A. Well, taking this matter one way, I judge from the 
number of boats which I have engaged in the mackerel fishery, and the 
number of boats which it is estimated is so engaged around the island. 
I take the average catch of the whole number of boats which it is esti- 
mated to fish about the island, and from this calculation I estimate that | 
the exports of mackerel would not exceed 11,000 or 12,000 barrels. 

Q. I notice that, in his report, the aggregate product of all the fish- _ 
eries of Prince Edward Island is valued at $494,967.08, and the total — | 
fish exports are valued at $169,714, leaving for consumption on the 
island, fish to the value of $225,253. 08; what do you say to these fig- | 
ures for 1876 ?—A. The consumption of fish on the island, besides mack- | 
erel, is pretty large; the island people consume a large quantity of her- | 
ring and a considerable quantity of codfish ; but I should think that 
these figures are rather astray. 

Q. How much are they astray, according to your best judgment? | 
What do you say to the aggregate yield of the fisheries of Prince Ed- 
ward Island for last year being valued at $494,967.08?—A. From the 
best figures which I have been able to make, I should not think that it 
exceeded one-half of that amount. 

Q. What do you say to the fish exports being valued at $169,714 ?— 
A. Well, I do not know that this is far astray. 

Q. Now as to prices; codfish in this report is valued at $4.25 a hun- | 
dred-weight 7?—A. Well, that is not very far out of the way. Cod were 
scarce and high last season, and that is about a fair figure. 

Q. The yield of the island herring fishery is estimated at 14,866 bar- | 
rels for last year; you say that there is a large consumption of herring | 
on the island 2: Yes; ‘but they do not use much poor herring. 

Q. These herring are valued at $2.50 a barrel ?—A. I should think 
that was a large estimate. 

Q. Mackerel are valued at $8 a barrel?—A. Well, that is not out of | 
the way; the price is small enough. i 

Q. The yield of hake is estimated at 14,862 hundred-weight, valued | | 
at $2.50?—A. That is about what the market price was on the island. 

Q. The island yield of cod-tongues and sounds for last year is esti- 
mated at 594 barrels; what do you say to that?—A. That is evidently _ 
a mistake; I do not think that there were any produced or shipped _ 
there last year—that i is, any to speak of. 

Q. The yield of fish-oil is estimated at 16,487 gallons, valued at 65 
cents a gallon ?--A. The price is about 15 cents too high. 

Q. It is entered that 2,590 gallons of fish-oil were exported, and 16, 487 
gallons produced ?—A. That i is too high a figure. 

Q. Do they use 14,000 gallons of fish-oil on the island ?—A. I do not 
think so; at any rate, so many gallons of oil as is there mentioned are: 
not produced on the island, unless the figure is made up by importation 
from other places. 

Q. The return of the number of fishermen on the island is given as 


iy 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3 2751 


3,831; what do you say to that?—A. I do not know that this figure is 
out of the way. I did not suppose that there was quite so many, but 
this may be the case. 

Q. According to those figures, each fisherman would get $128 worth 
of fish a year; what do you say to that? I notice that they are not so 
prosperous as the fishermen of New Brunswick, who are stated to have 
made a catch of fish valued in all at $1,953,088, and their number being 
3,850, it seems that they would earn $510 a head.—A. I should think 
that the figures for the island were pretty high; $25 a month would be 
pretty good wages for fishermen there, for the season of four or four and 
a half months. 

Q. What do you pay your fishermen ?—A. Ihave men fishing in a variety 
of ways; but from the larger part of them I buy the fish fresh, paying 
them so much per hundred. 

Q. That is for the men who fish in the larger portion of those 150 
boats ?—A. Yes. We own a few of the larger boats, and we receive for 
the use of these boats one-eighth of the catch, while they furnish their 
provisions and bait, and everything else they require, and we pay them 
so much per barrel for the fish when salted; then there are other boats 
from which we take the fish fresh and cure them, taking the fish round 
from the boats. These men find themselves, and we pay them so much 
per hundred for their fish through the season. 

Q. How much do you pay them ?—A. This season I paid them $1.35 
per hundred mackerel ; from the commencement to the end of the season, 
I did so. 

| Q. For any kind of mackerel ?—A. Yes. ; 

Q. That was fit to pack ?—A. Yes; and I found the bait and boat. 

Q. Did you find everything ?—A. Yes; provisions excepted. I found 

| the bait and boat, and paid them that amount. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. How much did you pay when the men owned their boats ?—A. 
Where they owned their own boats—these are mostly small and of mod- 
erate value—I paid them $10 or $12 a year extra for the use of their 

| boats, but I have very few men of that description. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. But still you paid them the same price as the others for their mack- 
-erel ?—A. Yes; we allowed them that amount for the use of their boats 
for the season. 
Q. How many mackerel are there to a barrel ?—A. They will average 
- year about 280, I should say; perhaps the number would be 260 or 


Q. Would the extreme points be 200 and 300 a barrel?—A. No; the 
_ highest number would be 350; this is for early mackerel when they are 
poor. 
Q. And how many would there be of the biggest mackerel ?—A. Not 
over a hundred. ~ 
Q. This would be of the very best?—A. Yes. 
Q. The biggest average catch would be 240 or 250 to the barrel ?— 
A. Yes; or 260. 
Q. How good an average catch of mackerel can your fishermen and 
the fishermen of Prince Edward Island make ?—A. There is a great 
| difference in fishermen; some will make double the catch that others 
will at the same stage; some boats will earn double what others will 
make ; some men understand the catching of the fish or the baiting of 
them better than others; for this or some other reason, at any rate, they 


2752 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


will catch many more fish than others; but the best men will perhaps 
earn $125 or $130, while the lowest amount thus earned will be perhaps 
$75 a season. 

Q. Is this when they are furnished with boats ?—A. Yes, and with 
bait, being subject to no expense save that of feeding themselves, and 
they live very cheaply. 

Q. How long would be the fishing season during which they would 
earn $125 or $130 ?—A. Four or four and a half months. 

Q. Is there any winter employment on the island ?—A. O, yes; a 
great many of the younger men leave the island in winter, and go over 
to Mirimichi, N. B., and work in the woods, spending the winter there 
and returning in the spring. Quite a number do so. 

Q. If they stay on the island, can they earn wages in the winter ?— 
A. A great many of these fishermen have farms, and in winter some get 
out firewood while others get out cooperage-stock, hoop poles, and © 
staves. They find something to do in winter, but they do not earn a | 
great deal. Most of them have farms—some small ones and some large | 
ones. 


Q. What do you say about the value of mackerel swimming, where _ 


they are thickest ?—A. I do not think that my head is clear enough to | 
answer that question. 

Q. Have you ever known any place where the fishermen as a class get 
more than a bare ordinary living on the average ?—A. Some of our 
fishermen are very Well off; but then they have farms right adjoining 
the fishing grounds. 

Q. How good a chance have you where you are located of seeing the 
boats and vessels engaged in fishing ?—A. I am there all the time, for 
four or five months, and I have an opportunity of seeing them daily 
from the time that I get up unti] dark; I might constantly look off om 
the water during the day from where I am. 

Q. Could any one with a pair of eyes have more constant opportunity 
of seeing the whole thing than you have for 30 miles’ distance 7—A. IL 
do not think that any one has a better opportunity than myself for see- 
ing what is going on on the water for the four or five months that I am 
there. 

Q. I understand you to say that if the duty on mackerel was reim- 
posed in the United States, your firm would, except for a small portion 
of the season, give up the mackerel business, and turn your attention 
to something else 7—A. Thatis my opinion decidedly. 

Q. If you could get rid of your property what would you do in that 
event?—A. If I could get rid of it at anything like reasonably fair 
value, I should then put it into the market, and go into something else. | 

Q. If you were going to carry on the mackerel fishery in vessels from 
Prince Edward Island, would you resort to the United States coasts at 
all; and, if so, why, aud how?—A. Well, I think I should then be in 
favor, for a portion of the year at any rate, of trying the fishing on the 
American coast, that is, if we could get captains and crews that would 
like to follow that business; and I suppose that a great many of them 
would do so. 

Q. Do you mean with hooks and lines, or with seines, or with both ?— 
A. Ido not know so much about it as to say. I should want to study 
up this question before deciding on that point, because I think that 
seining is getting rather played out, so they say. 

@. You think that it is ?—A. 1 think they have had pretty near * 
enough of it, and I do not kuow how profitable it would be to prosecute | 
hook and line fishing there. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. = = 2753 


Q. Here is an account of a Portland schooner which got 1,265 barrels 
seining this year—A. Yes; but I think that is an exception. I do not 
think that you would find a great many catches of tbat kind. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. You know all about the quality of the fish taken on the American 
coast? You are well acquainted with this subject ?—A. Generally 
speaking, yes. ; 

Q. What proportion does the best quality of fish taken there bear to 
the poorer ones ?—A. Well, this season, of the best quality, as I under- 
stand it, scarcely any have been taken; on that shore there has been a 
very small catch of very good mackerel this-year; but this varies very 
materially different years. You will see by the reports of the inspectors, 
or by their returns, that a very large catch of number ones will have 

‘been taken one year, while perhaps the next year the catch may run 
very largely of number threes. The quality of the catch varies almost 
every year. 

Q. We are told that the first vaught early in the season, both off the 
American coast and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, are poor 7—A. O, yes + 
they are always poor in the spring, and then they gradually fatten up. 

| Some seasons they fatten up more rapidly than they do during other 
-seasons. Some seasons good mackerel are caught in July and August, 
and in other seasons this is not the case. 

Q. Is the greater quantity of the fish that comes to market of the 
\inferior or of the best qualities?—A. As I told you, this varies very 
much. Some years the larger quantity will consist of the best qualities, 
| and other years, perhaps the very next season, it will be the direct 
| reverse. 


| By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Whereabouts on the American coast have the best mackerel been 
‘found ?—A. Well, I see by the reports of this season that this has been 
at Block Island, and last year this was also the case, I think. 

Q. For a few years past, which have sold for the highest price—num- 

ber ones from the bay or number ones from the American shore ?—A. 
'O, their shore mackerel have been the best quality of fish. ° 

Q. Some one the other day produced a Boston paper of recent date, 

in which Prince Edward Island mackerel—some of yours, I suppose ?— 
A. Very likely. 

_' Q. Were quoted higher than number ones shore mackerel; what does 
_ that mean ?—A. This is because they have caught very few mackerel of 
_| good quality on the American shore this season, but I am not speaking 
_/about this season, but of other years; perhaps in that same paper, a 
_ few weeks ago, Block Island mackerel were quoted a good deal higher 
| than bay mackerel; but this season has been rather an exception to the 
ordinary rule, and they have caught poor mackerel on the American 
shore, as I have understood. 

Q. When is the time for the best catch over on the United States 
shore?—A. I think th&t it is over now, though they may get some good 
catches yet; but this is hardly to be expected. 

Q. And the season is over in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. Yes, sub- 
stantially so. ‘ 

Q. Of course, the spring mackerel are thin and poor wherever they 
are caught?—A. Yes. 

Q. And very many more of them are caught off the United States 
coast than in the gulf?—A. Yes; they catch mackerel earlier there. A 
173 F 


~ 


2754 | AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


large catch of mackerel is taken south before we have them in the bay 
at all. 

Q. I suppose that the season during which there is mackerel-fishing 
both in the gulf and on the United States shore extends from the last 
of June until the middle of October ?—A. They commence fishing in the 
bay about the 20th of June, I should say. 

Q. When it extends from the 20th of June to the middle of October, 
how does the quality of the catch in the gulf compare with the quality 
of the catch off the United States coast for the same months from year 
to year?—A. Well, during the last five or six years, I think the best 
quality has been taken, I think,on the American shore, but I have 
known it to be right the reverse, and the very best mackerel to be taken 
in the bay. 

Q. Where do the best mackerel in the bay come from 7?—A. Well, I 
do not think that the mackerel taken at the different places vary much | 
in quality; sometimes the best mackerel are taken at the Magdalen | 
Islands, and sometimes they are got around the island; and sometimes | 
away up about Gaspé the very best mackerel are obtained; and some- | 
times this is the case farther north. 

Q. When you speak of round the island, do you mean within three | 
miles of land, or farther out ?—A. O, well, I do not know that I had 
either in view; speaking as a general thing, the larger mackerel are 
taken farther away from the shore. 

Q. The collector at Port Mulgrave, in one of his returns for 1875, | 
says that “the most of these mackerel”—-that is, the mackerel he speaks 
of as having been caught by 164 American vessels—“ were caught about 
Prince Edward Island, that is the smaller-sized mackerel; but the best! 
and largest were caught at the Magdalen Islands” ?—A. Well, I know that 
one year, and perhaps more than one year, and during several years, I 
have heard it said by fish-dealers at Boston and other places that they) | 
got the better quality of mackerel from the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. I see that you are not going torun down Prince Edward ae | | 
mackerel ?—A. No. 


By Mr. Dana: | | | 


Q. I have understood that the mackerel as they grow fat in the 
autumn leave the northeastern part of the gulf and go down through the 
Gut of Canso, and around the other side, and pass along to the south-| 
ward, and are to be found off Cape Cod and other parts of the America 
coast for a short time in November and the latter part of October in VT 


very best condition ; is that so?—A. I have heard that stated, and I 
have known them to be taken around Cape Cod late in the season, and 
even later than the middle of November; but after November, and ‘afte 4 
the water begins to get cold there, they begin to get thin. 

Q. They then get thin again ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And those that come down from here and get there by the middle © 
of October have been reported as being remarkably good, and up to th 
1st of November the fish are remarkably good ; and then, for that clas 
of fish, the market is not over in the United States 2—A. Well, it is no 
then over every year. 

Q. In the middle of October ?—A. They get them there in nets, 10} 
so much with hooks. I don’t think the mackerel take the hook. Man 
are of the opinion that they are not the same kind of mackerel but 
different species. I have heard so. 

Q. Some think the mackerel have been fattened up in the bay and 
come down, and others think it is not so. But at all events your mack 

j 


| 


ee inn: sacl 


ain 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. » <2t0o 


erel, so far as you have heard of the catch, bave not increased ?—A. 
They have not. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Practically the fishing off the American coast for the season is now 
over ?—A. I think so. 

Q. There will be nothing more of any moment caught to affect the 
mackerel ?—A. I should hardly think so. There has been such a thing, 
but as a general thing we don’t look for mackerel after the middle of 
October. 

Q. This year has been better than the averageof years at the island 7?— 
A. I think it has. . 

Q. Has it not been a very excellent year?—A. I think that, consider- 
ing the prices they have got and the quantity taken, it has been a very 
excellent year. 

Q. As regards the quality of the fish taken, what is the quality of the 
fish taken at the island this year?—A. The quality of the fish has been 
| poor. A very small proportion of the catch has been very good indeed ; 

the rest has been poor, very poor. ; 

Q. Can you tell me what price you obtained for your mackerel this 
_year?—A. The prices in Boston in greenbacks are for 3’s from $9 to $9.50; 
| 2s, from $12.50 to $13; for 1’s, so far as I have returns, from $16 to $18. 

Q. Are you selling at those prices or holding for higher ?—A. We are 
selling as fast as we can get them into the market. 

— Q. I suppose you find no difficulty in disposing of mackerel 7—A. No. 
‘V’s go very hard. Early in the summer they were going pretty freely. 
‘The better grades of mackerel have gone very fairly, in consequence of 
| the poor quality of the mackerel caught on the American shore. 

'Q. You say the mackerel market is a very sensitive market?—A. Yes. 

Q. It is regulated almost entirely by the supply, of course ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If there is a large catch prices fall; and if a small quality of catch 
prices go up ?—A. That is the fact. What I mean by a sensitive mar- 
ket is this: There is a large fishing fleet, and of course the dealers are 
watching the fleet very closely to see what the vessels are doing, and if 
‘the reports are that they are catching mackerel the dealers will not 
buy more than they can sell to-day, and if there is much stock in the 
jmarket it will have to be held. That is what I mean by a sensitive 


. market. 


. Q. Then every year when the mackerel season is about half over the 
‘dealers find out what the catch has been and is likely to be, and the 
\prices are regulated by the conclusion they arrive at. For instance, if 
‘the fleet have taken nothing half the season, and are not likely to catch 
many more, the prices will go up ?—A. The dealers, I think, carry on 
‘the business differently from what they did ten or fifteen years ago. I 
don’t think as a general thing they stock up anything like what they 
formerly did. I think they buy more from day to day. That is, I think © 
their experience for the last five or six or six or eight years has been 
that it has been a losing business to stock up and carry mackerel. 

Q. Taking the whole American catch, with the exception of those 
taken at Block Island, do you mean to say that Prince Edward Island 
mackerel do not compare favorably with them ?—A. This year they do 
compare favorably. : 

Q. More than favorably ?—A. More than favorably. What I mean 


|) ‘to say is, that No. 1 mackerel caught on the American shore are very 


mueh preferred to mackerel caught in the bay. They are of a different 


Species, apparently, to the bay mackerel, and they are whiter, cleaner, 


2756 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and fatter fish. There are some localities where they won’t buy bay 
mackerel at all if they know it. That is in the State of Pennsylvania. 
I heard a large dealer in New York say that his customers in Pennsylva- 
nia would not buy bay mackerel if they could get any other; in fact 
would not buy them at all. 

Q. They prefer this different species?—A. Iti is a better fish. Itis a 
better, whiter, and fatter fish. 

(. Your opinion is that it is not the same. species as the bay mack- 
erel ?—A. I have almost come to that conclusion. I am rather inclined 
to think it is a different species of fish. 

Q. You have examined them. What is the result of your examina- 
tion? Would you say it is a different species ?—A. I should think so. 
One is larger than the other, and a whiter fish; what they feed on may 
make the difference. 

Q. If mackerel came down from the bay and staid two or three days 
on the American shore, would they change in that way ?—A. I doubt 
very much whether they do that. 

Q. Have you got any stages on the west side, from North Cape down 
to Miminegash ?—A. None at Miminegash. Two on that side of what 
we call the Reef and two along the coast. 

Q. The fishing at Miminegash is said to be very good this year?—A. 
Yes; particularly around Miminegash. 

Q. There is a place sometimes called by the name French Village ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. It has been very good there?—A. Not so good there as further 
west at Miminegash. It has been very good there, and it has been very 
fair further along. 

Q. How has it been all around Cascumpeque ?—A. It has been very 
poor comparatively. 

Q. Your personal knowledge extends to that part of the island only ; 
you never fished at East Point?—A. No. 

Q. You know nothing about the eastern end of the island ?—A. No. 

Q. Nor about the mode of fishing there?—A. No; only from hear- 
say. 

Q. With regard to shore fishing. Where do your boats fish as a rule? 
Where is the bulk of the mackerel taken by boats ?—A. I think on the 
side my store is on, off the east side of the island; that is, near North 
Cape; one-half of them are taken outside of three miles. On the other 
shore, I think more are caught within three miles. At Miminegash par- 
ticularly the fish are very near. 

Q. Are any taken outside 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do small boats go out beyond three miles ?—A. Yes; they do very ° 
frequently ; but it varies in different years. The season of what we call 
the great catch, in 1874, I think the mackerel were caught close to the 
shore then as a ’ general "thing. 

Q. Have you noticed if, during the last sixteen years, mackerel have 
been found closer to the shore than in 1855 and 1856 ?—A. Well, no; I 
think this year they have not been. 

Q. During the last few years bas there not been a tendency that 

way ?—A. I don’t know but that there has. I should rather think there 
has been. 

Q. That is the opinion of most of the fishermen ?—A. Yes; I should 
say SO. 

e Q. You have noticed it sensibly so, I suppose ?—A. Well, I don’t | 
know that I should have noticed it without my attention having been | 
called to it. 


Soe ae 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CCMMISSION. 2757 


Q. Now that your attention has been called to it, do you say so?7—A. 
I should say we catch more fish inside than we did five, six, or eight 
years ago. : 

Q. You don’t know how far off shore the fish are taken at other parts 
of the island ?—A. I only judge from what I have heard. 

. Q. It is necessary in order to insure a fair catch to go inside with 
boats ?—A. Yes; I suppose so. 

Q. You would not like to carry on fishing and be excluded from com- 
ing within the three-mile limit 7—A. I should not. 

Q. You would abandon it at once ?7—A. Yes, I think so; that is, boat- 
fishing particularly. 

Q. Has the Lettie been out fishing this year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many barrels has she taken ?—A. At last accounts about 300 
barrels altogether. She landed 175 packed barrels on the first trip, and 
she was reported three weeks ago with 100 barrels. So I should say 
altogether about 300 barrels. That is rather—considerably above the 
average. 

Q. Would you prosecute the fishing in the bay if you were prohibited 
from coming within three miles of the shore to fish 7—A. I don’t think 
I would. 

Q. Have you any doubt about it ?—A. I don’t think I would. Thatis 
if 1 was compelled to come here. I might go to the Magdalen Islands 
if I had a right there. 

Q. Suppose you could go to Magdalen Islands, and were excluded 
from three miles of the shore everywhere else in the bay ?—A. I don’t 
know, but I might try it, if forced to prosecute the fishery in the bay. It 
does not take long to change berths. 

Q. Suppose you were excluded from changing your berth and were 
kept off shore ?—A. I would not want to carry it on. If I had vessels 
fishing on the American shore and found slim fishing there, it would not 
take long for them to come down to Magdalen Islands, try there, and go 
back again. Perhaps two weeks. 

Q. Would you, under those circumstances, prosecute the bay fishery 
as a bay fishery, sending vessels there year after year to remain the sea- 
son, and depending on it for the season’s work?—A. I don’t think I 
would. 

Q. Have you seen any large fleets of American vessels at your end of 
the island 7?—A. I have. 

_ Q. What is the largest number you have seen?—A. I[ could not un- 
dertake to speak with accuracy, but I should say from 150 to 200 sail. 

Q. At one time ?—A. I think I have seen 150 vessels at one time. 

Q. Did they fish by coming in and drifting off?—A. That is the prac- 
tice. Of course wherever they find the fish they go, but if they found 
them near the Jand they would not undertake to fish in that way with 
an inshore wind. If there is a moderate wind off shore they come in, 
throw bait, and drift off, and work back again. 

Q. You have seen them fishing in and out of the limits?—A. Yes. 

Q. Often?—A. Yes. There have not been many vessels there for the 
last two or three years, but previous to that I used to see them quite 
frequently. 

Q. In fleets?—A. Yes, 30 or 40 sail. 

Q. Day after day during the season?—A. I never saw them remain 
there a great while—perhaps one or two days. I don’t remember them 
Temaining over two days in succession. 
~ Q. Then they would return again?—A. Then they would go, perhaps 


% 


2758 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to the other side of the island and keep going round the island, or per” 
haps go to Magdalen Islands or Bay Chaleurs or Escuminac. 

Q. Would they come back again that season?—A. Very likely. They 
keep cruising round all the time, as a general thing. If they go to 
Magdalen Islands and have good fishing they hang round there. 

Q. It is essential to the success of the vessels that they have the right 
to go wherever the mackerel are ?—A. To make it successful I should 
say so. 

Q. You were asked some questions with regard to the exports of the 
island and the provisions consumed and you said you thought they 
were much exaggerated. What means have you of forming an estimate 
of the catch of mackerel, say in Kings County ?7—A. It was in 1876 we 
were examining, I think. I know very nearly the number of barrels I 
caught and what I exported. 

Q. I am not questioning your own catch ; I am speaking with regard 
to the catch of the island. What means have you of knowing what 
mackerel, cod, or other fish were caught by the people of King’s County, 
for instance?—A. I have not any means of giving an accurate state- 
ment. 

Q. Were you there that year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In King’s County ?—A. I was there but not for the purpose of 
making any special inquiries. The only knowledge I have is from what 
I heard and what I could gather as to the number of barrels the differ- 
ent localities had taken. I cannot say I give it accurately, but I ap- 
proximate it to the best of my judgment. 

Q. In that judgment you may be astray ?—A. Yes, I may be astray. 

Q. You made a guess at it, judging it from your own business ?—A. I 
did very much so, and from what I could hear. 

Q. Do you know that there are fishery officers at Prince Edward Isl- 
and, and have been since confederation 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Take Mr. Samuel Clark, fishery officer of Prince County; is he a 
respectable man ?—A. Yes; very much so. 

Q. A man on whose judgment you could place some confidence 7—A. 
In farming matters, yes; not in fishing matters. 

Q. A man in whose veracity and integrity you would place confi- 
dence ?—A. Yes. 

Q. He stands very high in the county ?—A. Yes; and is very much 
respected. ’ 

Q. Do you know that he made it his business to inquire at the differ- 
ent establishments what their catches were ?—A. I don’t know that he 
did. I don’t know that he ever inquired at my place. He might have 
asked some of my men. 

Q. He might have asked some of your head-men ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. He would not willfully put down anything that he knew to be 
wrong ?—A. I should not suppose so. 

Q. He is not a man to do so?—A. No. 

Q. In 1876 the exports are put down as of the value of $169,000 ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. That is probably below the mark, is it not —A. I should think it 
was not above the mark. 

Q. Quantities of fish leave the island, go to Shediac, and are shipped 
from there without being entered ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know that as a matter of fact ?—A. They always clear out 
the custom-house, but whether those quantities go into the returns at 
Charlottetown I don’t know. We generally take clearances at Tignish, 
and sometimes when the vessels are half or three quarters Joaded, and 


/ 


‘ 
een 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2759 


a wind springs up, they have to go, and they are as liable to run into 
Shediac as elsewhere and land their cargoes. 

Q. Those cargoes do not appear in the returns ?—A. I should be in- 
clined to think they do not. 

Q. You have stated that the people of the island consume large 
quantities of fish ?—A. I should judge they consume very little mack- 
erel. 

@. You have no means of knowing accurately 7—A. No. 

Q. They live largely upon fish 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you examined the census to see how many families there are 
on the island 7—A. I should make a rough guess at 26,000. 

Q. When you say this is an exaggeration, it is a rough figure 7—A. 
Not altogether. I know pretty nearly my own catch, and also what is 
caught round that end of the island. 

Q. Iam not speaking of the catch?—A. You have to get the catch 
to get the consumption. In knowing what my own place takes I have 
some better knowledge as to what the whole island takes than a person 
who knows nothing at all about it. 

Q. How many families do you say there are?—A. 20,000; I don’t 
know that that statement is correct, for they are pretty large families. 
generally. There ought to be that number with a population of one 
hundred thousand. 

Q. What quantity of fish of all kinds do they consume per family 7— 
A. They largely consume herring if they can get it. If they can get 
herring they don’t care much about any other fish. All of our fisher- 
men—and there are a good many of them—pick up a few codfish and 
carry home, and it amounts in the aggregate to a considerable quantity. 
I took that into account when J made my estimate. As a general thing 
they use herring. 

«. But you are not prepared to say how much, or about how much, 
each family uses of all kinds of fish 7—A. No. 

Q. I.want to know how you get at your estimate ?—A. I get at it 
from estimating what my own boats catch, and estimating the catch of 
the island from that. 

Q. Those prices which you give for the years, from 1871 to 1875, are 

* they not cash receipts which you put into your pocket after paying all 
expenses 7?—A. I make that as an estimate; that is not the exact figure. 
I only gave it considerable thought between yesterday and to-day. 

Q. You have a branch of your business at Boston ?7—A. We have had. 

@. You carried on business there and sold fish ?—A. Yes. 

- Q. You bought fish on the island largely, and sold them there too 7— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Have you examined the statistics of the United States with a view 
to ascertaining how many mackerel are taken on their shores 7?—A. I 
have every year obtained the returns of the inspector-general of Massa- 
chusetts. 

+ Q. About how many are taken ?—A. I should say, on an average, 
me Massachusetts inspection would average, perhaps, 234,000 or 240,000 
arrels. 

Q. Fish taken by American vessels 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Altogether everywhere ?—A. Inspected in the State of Massa- 
chusetts. That is the total catch of Massachusetts vessels, and perhaps 
Some vessels from Maine which come there and pack out. Those are 
what are packed out by vessels in every district of Massachusetts. 

Q. The mackerel fishing is in Massachusetts chiefly ?—A. It is the 

_ leading State for mackerel fishing. 


| 


2760 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What other statistics did you examine ?—A. Not those of any 
other State. 

Q. Does that return give you the quantity taken by those vessels on 
the American shore and the quantity taken on the British shore 7—A. 
There is no distinction made; they are all put together. 

Q. When you said that one quarter of the aggregate catch was taken 
in British waters, what did you mean ?—A. I mean by that, that if the 
whole catch of mackerel in the State of Maine and Massachusetts 
amounts to 280,000 barrels, and you add the Nova Scotia and Prince 
Edward Island catch, which might amount to 40,000 or 50,000 barrels, 
that would be 330,000. I took one- fourth of that. It is merely an esti- 
mate. 

Q. You don’t know what proportion of the fish are taken in British 
and what in American waters ?—A. I can tell when a very small fleet 
comes into British waters and has poor success, that it will not add | 
largely to the aggregate quantity. 

Q. You understand me to be speaking of the whole gulf and’ not of | 
the three-mile limit ?—A. I understand. 

Q. When you say that one-fourth only of the aggregate catch is taken | 
in British waters did you mean to include the catch taken by British | 
people, or did you mean that the Americans themselves catch one-fourth | 
on our shores ?—A. I mean to say that aside from what are caught by | 
American vessels, what are caught at Prince Edward Island and Nova | 
Scotia, which are the two principal places where mackerel are taken by | 
their own people, amount as near as I can estimate without going into 
figures, to one-fourth of the gross aggregate catch. 

Q. There is a little point regarding which I wish to put myself right 
before the Commission. I stated the other day here that there was no 
inspector of fish on Prince Edward Island. Now, have you paid any in- 
spector for the last two or three years since confederation ?—A. I am 
very certain that every year I paid the inspection fee to the general in- 
spector of Prince County. | 

Q. Since confederation ?—A. Yes. I talked the matter over this sea- | 
son with my bookkeeper as to whether it was best to pay that again, | 
and he concluded it was. 

Q. It enabled you to send your fish into Asusnchncetts You are | 
deputy inspector and you put your brand on your mackerel as such, and 
itis a benefit in that way to you?—A. I consider it so. | 

-Q. If it was not a benefit you would not continue it ?—A. I do not} 
think it is worth while to disturb the thing at all. I never saw that he | 


] 


was very reluctant to receive his fees. 

Q. From your knowledge of the people of the United States and those, 4 
engaged in fishing, are they anxious to have the right to fish in our 
waters—are the people greatly anxious to have it?—A. I don’t kown 
what the feeling is at the present time, but in former years, from conver- | | 
sations that I have had with them, I should say that they were anxious to 
have theright of fishing here, particularly those having expensive ves- 
sels here. They want full range of the whole waters of the Dominion, 
and, of course, those who own expensive vessels do not want them to be 
disturbed by cutters. 

Q. It was looked upon asa valuable privilege—the right to come into} © 
the gulf and fish?—A. Yes. 
Q. Near the shores ?—A. Yes. There was a great difference of opin« 
ion among fishermen and among skippers of vessels about it; some did 

not seem to care much about it and some did. 
Q. That accounts for the fact that some of the witnesses have said 


_— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.  . 2761 


that they cauglt fish around Prince Edward Island and some did not ?— 
A. A good many men fishing in American vessels, perhaps, were natives 


_ of the island, or natives of Nova Scotia, and familiar with those shores. 


Of course, those would fish where perhaps others, such as Cape Cod 
vessels, would not, for they did not care so much to come into the 
vicinity of the land. . 

Q. The island skippers would come close to the shores of the island, 
while others would keep out ?—A. Yes; those who were familiar with 
all the harbors and bays round the island, particularly those familiar 
with the harbors, for they would want to make for the harbors in a gale 
of wind. Those familiar with the harbors would not hesitate to fish 
round the shores, but a great many would hardly care to fish round the 
bend of the island at all. 

Q. Those not acquainted with the place?—A. Yes. 

Q: You have never fished at Magdalen Island yourself ?—A. No. 

A). You confine your operations to Prince Edward Island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Your fishing stages are round the island ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You prefer to remain there?—A. That is where the outlay has 
been made, and I would not care to extend it. 

Q. You would not care to go to Magdalen Islands and start business 
there ?—A. I would not. I don’t, however, pretend to know anything 
about Magdalen Islands. It may be a better place to fish, but any one 
who has made a large investment at a certain place would not care to ex- 
tend it or change it. It takesalarge amount of capital to get an exten- 
sive fishery started. You have to havea good many buildings, grounds, 
and wharves, and other accessories to make it a success. : 

Q. You were speaking about the effect of the United States imposing 
aduty on herring. The United States market is not the sole market for 
herring ?—A. No; by no means, though it is a very large market. 

Q. So if they did impose a duty amounting to prohibition they would 
themselves suffer as much as anybody else ?—A. It would not destroy 
the fishing altogether, of course. It is very desirable, however, to have 
all the market you can get for your fish. 

Q. And it is very desirable for the consumer to have all the fish com- 
ing in that he requires ?—A. Yes. 

. Q. What is the price of pogies?—A. I think about an average price 
would be from $4 to $5 a barrel. 

Q. Where; at the island?—A. In Boston. 


By Mr. Foster : 


Q. What are pogies worth in the island ?—A. The cust to bring them 
by steamer would be about 50 cents a barrel. If they charged for them 
$5 in Boston they would cost $5.50 landed at Charlottetown. 

Q. Suppose the three-mile line marked out by a line of buoys so that 
every one could see when he was in and when out, and there was no dan- 
gerof molestation outside, howimportant do you think United States fish- 
ermen would regard it?—A. Well, I cannot say. I should suppose they 
would, of course, attach some importance to the privilege of coming 
inshore, but I don’t think that it would stop their prosecuting the fish- 
eries in the gulf. , 

Q. What was the real thing that made our people anxious about 
this? for you know. What was thereal trouble that made them anxious 
about the removal of the restriction ?—A. Well, they want to come 
here without the expense of a license, and want to be free from annoy- 
ance from cutters, and, of course, they want to go where they please. 
They don’t want to be restricted. If they find mackerel at any place, 


_ they want the privilege of catching them. 


I 


1 


2762 $= AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Do you think the United States mackerel fleet could afford to pay 
a license-fee of $2 a ton, which was asked in the year 1868?—A, I 
should not suppose they could. 

Q. As a matter of money, was it worth that ?—A. I should not think 
it would be. 

Q. When the license-fee was fifty cents a ton, did they nearly all pay 
it ?—A. I think they did. 

Q. And when it was $1 per ton 7—A. I think some paid it. 

€@. And when it was $2 per ton ?—A. I think they generally took the 
risk, or else kept out to sea and did not frequent the limits. 

Q. Then, in your judgment, $2 per ton is a higher tariff than the 
privilege is worth in money ?—A. Most distinctly it is, taking the three 
last years as a criterion. 

Q. Go back to the years when it was put on.—A. I should say, to 
give my own opinion, it would be prohibitory, even taking the whole 
range of the years; but for the three last years there has been scarcely 
a vessel that has made any money, though having free access to all the 
shores and bays. 

Q. Now, if a man’s vessel got seized, how much difference would it 
make whether it was seized rightly or wrongly ?—A. If seized and de- 
tained for any time, it breaks up the voyage and the men would leave, 
and it would be a great disaster to the owner in every way. 

Q. If he had every advantage ?—A. If everything was favorable. 

Q. And supposing litigation in the admiralty courts of Nova Scotia 
and New Brunswick was not costly ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know about the sale of fresh fish in Charlottetown ; your 
firm sells it ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know how much mackerel they sell 7—A. Not personally. 
I am told the amount is very small, except fresh mackerel—they sell a 
good many fresh. 

Q. You were asked whether you would come to the gulf on mackerel 
fishing exclusively, if you were excluded from the three-mile limits ? 
Suppose you were located in the United States, and had the benefit of 
fishing on the United States shore, would you send a mackerel schooner 
down here ?—A. I do not think so, from my personal knowledge of the 
matter. 

Q. Your firm is established here, with a property that cannot be re- 
moved ?—A. It cannot be removed. It is a large investment—the 
accumulation of many years. 

Q. Are not United States mackerel schooners generally abandoning 
the gulf fishery ?—A. It would seem so from the experience of the last 
few years ; but they may take hold again. If mackerel should appear 
in large quantities in the gulf, and there was a scarcity at home, they 
would come here again. 

@. Wherever there is a chance to make money, there enterprise will 
be of course.—A. There have been seasons and sections of seasons per- 
haps years ago when mackerel were scarce and they made very poor 
voyages. 

Q. You spoke of the statistics of the quantity of mackerel inspected. 
In Massachusetts there are accurate statistics of the number of barrels 
of mackerel inspected ?—A. They are supposed to be correct. Each 
deputy inspector makes a return once a year. 

Q. And that embraces all the salt mackerel that comes in in United 
States vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. It also includes, does it not, all mackerel imported from the prov- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2763 


inees which chances to be reinspected?—A. I am not certain whether 
that covers reinspected mackerel or not, but I think it does. 

q. The statistics of Maine are in pretty poor shape, I believe 7—A. I 
don’t know much about them. I only approximate to the catch of 
Maine. 

Q. I want to see what your estimate was—how many barrels. The 
quantity varies greatly from year to year?—A. Yes. 

@. Immensely ?—A. Yes. 

Q. So itis a difficult thing to make an average of ?—A. Yes; dhe 
year it was as low as 100,000 barrels, and another as high as 340,000 
barrels. 

Q. What was the average?—A. I think I said 240,000 or 250,000 
barrels. 

Q. What did you estimate that to be—the quantity inspected in Mas- 
sachusetts ?—A. The Massachusetts inspection. 

Q. Then there would be the Maine inspection ?—A. Yes. 

@. Can you estimate that?—A. Maine has been falling off greatly for 
the last 10 or 15 years, and they bave carried on the business much less 
extensively than formerly. A great many Maine vessels make their 
headquarters at Boston and pack out there. 

Q. The whole business is centering in Gloucester ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And other fishing towns are dying out?—A. Yes; the Maine towns 
particularly have been dying for 20 years. 

~, So that the salt-mackerel business is concentrating in Gloucester ?— 
A. Yes. . 

Q. You say that 225,000 or 230,000 is the Massachusetts inspection ; 
I don’t know whether you could hazard an estimate for Maine?—A. I 
could not. 

Q. You know, generally, whether it is 10,000 or 50,000 barrels ?—A. 
It would be more than 10,000 barrels; Portland alone would be more 
than 10,000. I would sooner say it would be 40,000 or 50,000 barrels. 

Q. Those quantities together make 270,000 or 275,000 barrels. In 
addition to those there is what comes from the provinces, the British 
catch ; what do you estimate the British catch to be?—A. The average 
British catch? 

Q. Yes.—A. I should say from 70,000 to 80,000 barrels. 

Q. And of that how much comes to the States?—A. I should say 


_ More than three-fourths. 


Q. To what port does that chiefly come ?—A. Boston takes, I think, 
the ereater portion; New York, of late years, has taken more than for- 
merly. 

Q. Can you make an estimate of the quantity taken by New York ?— 
A. No; but 1 know a good many more go to New York than formerly. 

Q. Those are about the only places?—A. Yes; I don’t know but that 
some go to Philadelphia—not a great many. 

Q. You were asked with regard to your knowledge as to the quantity 
of fish consumed upon the island; Mr. Howland is the gentleman who 
makes up statistics there ?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. He estimates, I see, on page 77 of the British evidence, that there 
are 15 per cent. of the mackerel sold to go off the island that do not get 
into the exports; so his estimate would be that there are $92,000 worth 
of mackere] that goes off the island. What do you say to that?—A, 
He makes that up for one year, does he not? 

Q. Yes. He was going on the basis of 1876, and was correcting offi- 
cial statistics 7—A. I should think that was not very much out of the 


‘| Way. 


2764 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Then his estimate is that 25 per cent. of that amount would be 
consumed on the island—one-fourth of $92,000 ?—A. I think he is there 
very much astray. 

Q. His estimate is that one-fourth, which is $23,000, would be con- 
sumed on the island 7—A. I think he is very much out. 

Q. You don’t think the people of the island eat $23,000 worth ?—A. 
Not of mackerel. They eat very few mackerel; they eat more largely 
of other fish. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Some of the witnesses, who have been captains of American ves- 
sels, have said they caught nearly three-fourths, some one-half, others 
one-fifth and one-eighth of their fish within three miles of the shore i in 
the gulf. You spoke, i in answer to Mr. Foster, about the $2 duty per 
ton being so large they could not pay it to go inside. As a matter of 
fact, at the time when they did not take out licenses, did they not poach 
on the preserves and come in and run the risk ?—A. Some vessels did, 
some did not. 

Q. Because I find that for a vessel of 60 tons, at $2 per ton, the 
amount would only be $120, and 10 barrels of mackerel at $12 a barrel 
would cover that.—A. Butif they were just making both ends meet, 
$120 would turn the scale. 

Q. I have not found any witness who did not acknowledge he caught 
some inside.—A. I am speaking in general terms. They would take 
that cost into account in making up the voyage for the vessel, and that 
might very readily turn the scale. The owners might discuss the ques- 
tion whether they would send the vessel to the bay or on their own 
shores, and when they put down $120 that might determine the trip. 

Q. You don’t know the proportion of the fleet that ran the risk ?—A. 
I have not any means of knowing. 

Q. I think I understand you to say that catching mackerel by sein- 
ing injures the fishing 7—A. That is my opinion. Some other witness 
would be able to give better evidence on that point. I can only say so 
from hearsay. ; 


By Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. You have had experience in the fishing iiathose in the Provinces 
and also in Boston. It is said frequently that mackerel will bring only 
a certain price in the American market, and that if they exceed a cer- 


tain price the people resort to other kinds for food. Have you in your | 


experience discovered whether they were any other kinds of fish food 


they resorted to, particularly when mackerel were a high price; and if | 


so, what kinds of fish are they ?—A. The lake fish of late years have 


been taken in large quantities and have supplied the markets to some | 


extent. A large amount of territory is covered by them, and a great 
many like them and give them the preference. 

(. Any other kinds of sea fish ?—A. They use largely fresh fish now. 
For instance, frozen herring are taken in very large quantities from 
Newfoundland and the Bay of Fundy. 

Q. What I want to know is this; if, when mackerel are at a certain 
ee the people resort to other kinds of food that are cheaper ?—A. 

es 

Q. In regard to the market for fresh mackerel; when did that market 


begin to expand, the fish going from the sea shore by the railways over § : 


the country 1A. It has been growing very rapidly for the last 12 or 15 
years, say for the last 12 years. 
Q. Is it now growing or not ?—A. I think it is growing. 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2765 


(. How far do fresh mackerel go?—A. I don’t know there is any limit. 

Q. Do you know of any fresh mackerel being carried to California 
from our side?-—A. I should think not. I don’t know but they might 
carry it. ; 

@. They send lobsters canned?—A. And they send fresh salmon in 
cans from California here. 

Q. According to your experience, how far up and down the Mississippi 
Valley does the fresh fish go?—A. It goes to Chicago and Milwaukee 
and other Western points. 

Q. You have been engaged in the mackerel and cod-fishing at Prince 
Edward Island for a good many years, and you are located there. Have 
you ever attempted to cure codfish in the way they are cured for foreign 


markets, for warm climates, such as the West Indies ?—A. I cure cod- 


fish almost exclusively for foreign markets in warm climates. 

Q. Is that done very extensively by any except what are called Jersey- 
men ?—A. It is. 

Q. Have you always done it 7—A. I have done it for 12 or 15 years. 

Q. And always exported to foreign markets?—A. Yes, almost always. 

Q. Did you ever find a market for that kind of cured fish in the United 
States?—A. For the large fish we do. . 

Q. Cured in that way ?—A. Yes; for the large fish, but it is a small 
proportion of them. 

No. 66. 


CHRESTEN NELSON, of Gloucester, Mass., fisherman and sailmaker, 
was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn 
and examined. : 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. What is your age ?—Answer. 52 years. 

Q. You are a native of what country 7—A. Denmark. 

Q. You now live at Gloucester ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And have done so for how many years?—A. For about 30 years. 

Q. Do you recollect what was the first year you went into the gulf 
fishing ?—A. 1851. 

Q. Did you go cod-fishing part of the season ?—A. Yes. 

@. Then you went into the gulf?—A. Yes. 

©. How many trips did you make that year ?—A. Two. 

Q. What did you catch the first trip ?—A. The first trip we caught 
30U barrels and the second 325. 

Q. Did you-catch those outside or inside ?—A. The first trip we caught 
them entirdly out of the limits; the second trip we caught as far as 
Margaree; I think we got a very few inside the limits. 

Q. How many do you suppose, out of the 325 barrrls, did you catch 
at Margaree inside ?—A. I should think from 25 to 30 barrels, 

Q. In 1852 were you cod-fishing in the early part of the season and 
afterward in the bay 7?—A, Yes. 

Q. How many trips did you make ?—A. One, and caught 350 barrels. 

Q. Of those how many were caught inside ?—A. I could not say very 
correctly, but I should say from 20 to 30 barrels. 

Q. In 1853 what were you doing?—A. I went into the bay in July; 
I was not fishing in the spring ; I was working at sail-making. 

Q. And how much did you get ?—A. 180 barrels. . 

_Q. Where ?—A. Off on Banks Orphan and Bradley. There were 
hone caught inshore that year. We did not so catch any; and there 
were very few mackerel in the bay that year. ; 

Q. Was this your last trip?—A. Yes. 


2766 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Now from your experience during those years, what do you think 
of the inshore fishery in the bay for such vessels as are sent out from 
Gloucester? What is the value, everything considered, of the inshore 
fishery in the bay for such vessels as are used in the States?—A. I 
should not consider it worth anything. 

Q. What are your objections to it?—A. It is very dangerous to fish 
inshore; our vessels are large and they want to be off shore in case a 
storm should come up. 

Q. In your experience you found that there were plenty of fish off 
shore ?—A. Yes, except the last year; there were not any fish in the 
bay that year save very few. 

Q. You are a sailmaker, and in 1853 you went back to your trade ?— 
A. I went into business in the fall of 1853. 

Q. And followed it up until when 7—A. 1864. 

Q. After that did you go into the fishing business, not as a fisherman 
but as a dealer?—A. Yes. 

Q. Had you a partner ?—A. Yes; Sargent S. Day. 

Q. What was the style of your firm ?—A. Nelson & Day. 

Q. How long were you in it?—A. From 1864 to 1869. 

Q. Do you count 1864 and 1869?—A. Yes; that is, I came out in the 
fall of 1869. 

Q. You are an outfitter and in the fishing business ?---A. Yes. 

Q. How many vessels did you usually manage ?—A. We had six. 

Q. Were you interested in all of them?—A. Yes, I think so; all _ 
except one. | 

Q. Some you owned 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And you were interested in all of them except one?—A. Yes. 

Q. In these cases had your skippers shares in the vessels ?—A. Yes; 
they invariably held a small portion of them—one-quarter or something 
like that. 

Q. Is it customary in Gloucester for the skippers to take shares in 
vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it to the interest of the owners to interest them in their business 
in that way ?—A. Yes; very much so. 

Q. When the owner makes such an arrangement with a skipper, giving 
him a share in the vessel, one-quarter, one-eighth, or one-half, how do 
they carry it out? Is the skipper entered at the custom-house as part 
owner? Has he a bill of sale?—A. In some cases this is done, but not 
in all cases. He sometimes receives obligations, to be given in a bill of * 
sale when it is paid for. 

Q. He sometimes has a bill of sale, and gives a mortgage back ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. And sometimes a private agreement is made to ere him a bill of 
sale when he pays for it?—A. Yes. 

Q. While you were engaged in the fishing business eerie these five 
or six years, were you cod-fishing as well?—A. I was some early in the 
spring, but I was principally engaged in the bay fisheries, that is, the | 
vessels were principally sent to the bay. 

Q. Were you fishing off the American coast at all?—A. No, not much, 
except at George’s Bank. 

Q. How did your bay fishing turn out?—A. Very slim. : 

(. Did you gain or lose by it?—A. We lost by it. In that time we | 
lost about all we had put into the concern. 

Q. How much did you put in?—A. Somewhere in the vicinity br | 
$15,000, I think. 

Q. In what business had you made that ?—A. I made it principally 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2767 


by sailmaking, though this was not the case with the whole of it. I 
made some by doing other business attached to my sailmaking business. 

Q. You put in a capital of about $14,000 or $15,000 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you lose it all?—A. No, not the whole of it, but very nearly 
all. 

Q. To what was the loss due; the shore fishery, cod-fishing, or the bay 
fishery ?—A. Well, it was due to the bay fishery. We sent our vessels 
to the bay expecting to get something out of it, and we did not succeed. 

(). Have you your books?—A. No; what books I had were burned 
up last year when I was burned out. 

Q. During the time you were so engaged, how was your Bank fishing— 
fair?—A. Yes; it was fair. 

Q. How did your shore fishing turn out ?—A. That was very good. 

Q. Have you done anything in the fishing business since 1869?7—A. 

Q. You then went back to your other business again?—A. Yes. 

@. How often does a fishing schooner need a new suit of sails on the 
average, if she is well handled and well managed ?—A. By good care a 

suit of sails will last two years. ° 

Q. And this requires good care?—A. Yes; I have known some cases 
where a new suit of sails was worn out in one year. 

Q. Does a suit of sails last a fishing vessel as long as a merchant- 
man?—A, No. 

Q. A merchantman sails from one port to another, and farls her sails 
when she lies in port?—A. Yes; and they are generally unbent when 
the vessel goes into port. 

Q. While fishing vessels are at it all the time?—A. Yes. 

Q. What did a new suit of sails cost during the war; not a fancy 
suit, but a foresail, a mainsail, and a couple of jibs?—A. For a vessel 
- 90 or 100 tons a suit of sails of that kind then cost about $2,100 or 

2,200. 

Q. How is it now ?—A. The same suit would now cost between $500 
and $600... 

Q. While you were pursuing the business, how much have you paid 
out for suits of sails on the average ?—A. I guess they cost us, while I 
was in the business, about $800 a suit on the average. 

Q. What will rigging—running and standing rigging both, with 
blocks—delivered at the wharf, cost ?—A. From $1,000 to $1,200. 

Q. I suppose that some parts of the rigging wear out more rapidly 
than others ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is the same material used in sails for fishing-vessels as for vessels 
in the merchant service ?—A. They are made with the same materials, 
but sometimes they are not made out of the same materials. They are 
made out of hemp or.Russia canvas. 

Q. Russia duck ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And not canvas ?—A. Not cotton canvas; they are made out of 
cotton and hemp canvas. 

Q. Is any better material to be had for sails for small vessels than 
Russia duck ?—A. Yes; cotton is preferable. 

Q. Does it cost more ?—A. It did not cost much more during the war. 
Q. Cotton did not?—A. No; but cotton cost the most during the 
war. é . 

Q. Your sails have been made since the war, and for many years past, 
out of Russia duck ?—A. No. 

Q. Out of what, then ?—A. Cotton. 


2768 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. And that you think is the best material?—A. Yes; for our fishing 
vessels. 

@. It wears the longest 7—A. Yes. 

@. And yet it won’t wear over two years 7?—A. No. 

@. You have had a good deal to do in fitting out vessels, &c.; what 
would a well-built vessel now cost, as she is launched, and what has 
such a vessel cost, say of 100 tons, built at Essex or Gloucester, on the 
average during the last five or six years ?—A. Without rigging or 
sails? 

Q. Rigged but without provisions—what would she cost round 
tackled, with sails and rigging ?—A. Such a vessel would be worth 
$7,500. 

Q. We will call it $8,000; suppose she cost this sum, what would her 
depreciation be for the first year, if nothing extraordinary happens, and 
if she is kept in good order, painted, and the rigging rove wherever this. | 
was required; what would the depreciation on her market value be in 
one year under such circumstances ?—A. If I set it at $1,000 for the 
first year, that would be a very low sum. 

Q. That would be one-eighth of her whole cost ?—A. Yes; and that 
would be a very low figure. 

Q. What do you think her fair average depreciation would be 7—A, | 
I should consider that a fair average would be $1,000 for one year’s 
running from the time she first leaves the harbor; but it would go over | 
that. 

Q. Tt wala more likely be more than less ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What would it be after the first year, supposing she is kept in good 
order all the while and suffers no extraordinary injury ?—A. Perhaps it 
might be $500 or $600 a year. | 

Q. What is considered among persons who deal in these vessels to be | 
the average life of a fishing-vessel, supposing that she is well built and 
well taken care of? You count her as a fishing-vessel down to the 
time when it becomes difficult to insure her, and so long as a company | 
will take her as fairly qualified to make fishing voyages?—A. Yes. I do | 
not know about this, but I have understood from the people in Glouces- 
ter, who have figured it up, that the average life of a fishing-vessel is 
fourteen years, but then I have never made it a study to find it out 
for myself. 

Q. You take the current opinion in Gloucester on this point?—A. | 
Yes. 

By Mr. Thomson : 


Q. Do I understand you to say that fourteen years is the longest | 
period a Gloucester fishing-vessel lives?—A. No. I think that there | 
are vessels which are a great deal older, but on the average this is not | 
the case. 

@. How old have you known them to be run in Gloucester ?—A. For | 
twenty-five or thirty years, I think, and perhaps longer. | 

Q. For vessels accustomed to fish i in the Bay of St. Lawrence ?—A, | 
Yes. I think it is likely they have fished there. 

(). According to you, a vessel worth $8,000 would depreciate $1,000 | 
a year 7—A. Yes, for the first year. 

‘Q. And the next year she would depreciate in value $600 2—A. Yes 
and I should think that would be a very low figure. 

(. And the next year how much would it be ?—A. Less. 

(). At what time would the depreciation stop altogether ?—A. O, well, 
after a vessel has depreciated for 4 or 5 years, she does not depreciate | 
any more for a number of years. 


| 
. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
) 


Tt 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 2769 


Q. Does she get better after that?—A. I do not think she then gets 
any better, but she does not afterwards show depreciation so much. 

. In what does the depreciation, which you are pleased to put down 
at $1,000 for the first year, consist ?—A. Well, in sails and rigging and 
wear of the vessel. 

Q. If she is properly fitted out, how does it happen that the loss is 
$1,000 the first year, and why the small amount of $600 afterwards?—A. 
She might not depreciate that amount, but any man knows that if she 
was put on the market the depreciation would amount to $2,000. 

Q. In other words, she would not be considered a new vessel, and 
therefore she would not bring the same price as if she was just launched ? 
—A. No. 

Q. Would you undertake to swear that a vessel at the end of her first 
year would not be as good a vessel, for all practical purposes, if not 

better, perhaps, than when she was launched ?—A. No; I would not 
swear any such thing. 

Q. Would you swear that she then might be just as good 7—A. No; 

‘there would be wear and tear of sails and rigging during that year. 
Q. Would there be any wear and tear of the hull if she did not meet 
_ with any extraordinary accident 7—A. I do not know that there would 
/ be any particular wear and tear of the bull if she was in good order. 
Q. At the end of the first year, does not the rigging get set and does 
not the vessel then work generally better altogether than at first ?—A. 
Well, I do not think so. 

Q. Have you any experience yourself in this respect?—A. Well, [ 
have had some—a little experience, but not a great deal. 

Q. Do you wish to have the Commission understand that the usual 
value of the ordinary fishing-vessels which run out of Gloucester to fish 


in the Bay of St. Lawrence is $8,000 ?—A. Some are worth more than 


| that. 

Q. I mean on an ordinary vessel; is $8,000 the ordinary price for 
\them ?—A. I do not know that this would be the average value to-day 
‘of the vessels which come in to the Bay of St. Lawrence. 

Q. I speak of 100-ton’vessels; do you say that this would be the av- 
erage value or the average cost of such vessels ?—A. It would be the 
‘average cost of a new vessel. 

Q. Do you speak of their cost as it was during the war, when built, 

rigged, and launched, or as it is at the present time ?—A. I am speaking 
‘of the present time. 

Q. Do you swear that an ordinary vessel of 100 tons, such as are used 
‘in Gloucester for fishing in the bay, now costs $8,000?—A. In the 
vicinity of that—yes; the cost would be $7,500 or $8,000. 

Q. That is at the rate of $80 a ton?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is not that au immense price?—A. I do not think so. 

Q. Is that an ordinary price ?—A. I think so; but I could not say. 


| I have not bought any vessels by the ton. 


Q. You see that if a 100-ton vessel costs $8,000, this would be $80 a 
ton ?—A. Yes. ’ 

Q. Are you swearing as to the cost of vessels from your own knowl- 
edge or at hap-hazard ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you swear that a vessel of that description costs $80 a ton ? 
—A. About that—yes. : 

-Q. Did you ever build one yourself ?—A. Yes. 
we Is there anything extra about the building of these vessels 1—A. 

es. 

174 F 


4 


— 


2770 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What is it?—A. Sometimes there is extra cost about them, I 
think. 

Q. But ordinarily I mean ?—A. They are all built as well as we ean 
have them built. 

Q. Is such a vessel copper-fastened 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And coppered on the bottom ?—A. No. 

A. What is there extra about her ?—A. This is the copper fastening. 

Q. Does that cost very much ?—A. I could not say. 


Q. Although you undertake to say that this is the common price— | 


$80 a ton—you cannot tell whether copper fastening increases the price 
materially or not?—A. When we contract for a vessel we contract that 
she shall be built with copper fastenings. 

Q. And you cannot tell whether copper fastening increases the price 
much or not ?—A. Well, our vessels are all copper-fastened. 

Q. You cannot tell whether copper fastening increases the price or 
not ?—A. I could not say how much. 

Q. Are you aware that vessels are now built in the States, which are 
classed for 10 years, and sold for-$60 a ton ?—A. I do not know that. 

Q. Are you aware that 1,000-ton vessels are now built and classed 
for ten years, at that rate ?—A. I am not. 

Q. Are you aware that this is not so ?—A. No, I could not say that. 

Q. You are not familiar with this class of vessels ?—A. I am not 
familiar with that class of vessels. 

Q. When you speak of the wear and tear of these vessels, at what 
time do they come into the bay ?—A. In July generally. 

Q. And when do they go out ?—A. In the last part of October. 

Q. What do you do with them for the remainder of the season 7—A. 
They go winter fishing and shore fishing. 

Q. On your own coast ?—A. Yes. 


Q. How long do they fish there ?—A. During the winter principally. — 


Q. During the whole winter ?—A. Principally, yes. 

Q. Is not the whole or the chief part of this wear and tear sustained 
upon your own coast ?—A. I do not think that it is. 

Q. Then you wish the Commission to understand that although your 
vessels are only in the Bay of St. Lawrence during the summer months 
and the early fall months, all the wear and tear, or a large portion of it, 
takes place there; and that very little takes place in the winter months 
on your own coast ?—A. I do not mean to say any such thing. 


Q. What do you mean to say? Iask you whether such wear and tear ” 


is not chiefly sustained on your own coast when fishing in winter ?—A, 
I suppose that more wear and tear is suffered on our coast in winter than 
would be the case in the Bay of St. Lawrence in summer; this would be 
the case. 

Q. More than that—are not heavy snow-storms, and frost, and rain, 


and wind then encountered on your coast, and after they have been wet, | 


does not the frost crack the sails?—A. During a storm in winter the 
vessels generally seek a harbor. 
Q. But before they get under cover do not the wind and snow and ice 


affect the sails?]—A. I do not think that it would injure the sails to have || 


snow and ice on them. 


Q. Then I understand you to say that sails which get wet and are | 


frozen are not injured by it?—A. I do not think they are as long as be 
are not used. 


Q. Then the sails which are wet and frozen and thawed out again in| 


the winter are not injured by it, but they are injured by summer gales 


in the Gulf of St. Lawrence —-: They are injured a great deal more 


Be na a ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. = 2771 


in the Bay of St. Lawrence by fogs and mildew. They mildew in the 
bay in summer. 

Q. Do you swear that it is foggy in the bay in summer ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When is this the case ?—A. I have been there during three sum- 

mers, and it was then foggy there for a great part of the time. 

Q. For how many days on the average would it be foggy 7—A. That I 

could not say. 

Q. How long would this be the case, taking the whole summer 

through ?—A. I would not pretend to say. 

Q. You swear that the fog does more injury to the sails in the bay 

than the winter work on your own coast ?—A. I do. 

Q. You swear that such fog does more injury to them than the rain 

and the ice and the snow on your coast 7?—A. Yes. 

_Q. And the freezing and thawing out of your sails ?—A. Yes. 
 Q. And this does them more injury than the heavy gales which we all 
_ know prevail on your coast in winter?—A. But they are not out in the 
gales ; if they are it would be different. 

Q. I presume that they then are out?—A. Occasionally they might 
| then be caught out. 

Q. And you swear that more injury is done tbem by fog in the Bay of 
| St. Lawrence than is done by all these other effects ?—A. This would 
) not be the case but on our New England coast, and more injury is done 
| them by fog in the bay than by use on our coast. 

Q. What is the average duration of this fog in the bay in summer ?— 
_ A. 1 could not tell you. 

_. Q. Suppose that it last for only three days during the whole season ; 
} would you then swear that this would do the sails more harm than the 
_) winter fishing ?—A. No. I think there is more fog than that. 
_ Q. You swear that there is more than that in the bay ?—A. Yes; I 
| Can swear that there are more than 3 days’ fog in the bay in summer, 
Q. You swear this from your own experience ?—A. Yes. 
Q. How long do you swear the fog continues ?—A. I would not want 
» to swear to any particular number of days. 
_Q. How many days do you think that this is the case during the sea- 
} son ?—A. I think I might have been for a week at a time in a fog there. 

Q. Where would you be fishing then ?—A. On Bank Orphan. 

_Q. Did you ever move off the Bank at all during this time?—A. We 
| jogged about there and fished on the Bank. We did not go off the Bank. 
| Q. Were you fishing during the fog 7—A. Yes. 
Q. Were those the seasons when you did not come near the 3-mile 
|| limit?—A. Yes. 
_ —Q. If you could not see for a fog, how did you happen to know that 
|| you were not three miles from the coast ?—A. By soundings. 
_ Q. Would the soundings necessarily indicate how near the coast you 
| were ?—A. Yes; most generally. 

Q. Do I understand you to say that the water off Prince Edward 
Island shoals off exactly in the same proportion from one end of the 
Coast to the other, and that all you have to do is to throw out the lead to 
know exactly how far from the land you are?—A. I do not know as it 

does, but you can tell this pretty nearly. 

Q. And when you have sworn that you did not fish within three miles 
of land, do you mean that the lead thus informed you as to tlie distance, 
; and that you did not judge it from what you saw?—A. This was not 
the case at that time. We were then off shore on the Banks. 

-Q. You were never inshore at all ?—A. Oh, yes. 


Zitz AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. But you were never inshore in a fog 7—A. Yes; if we were inshore 
in a fog we would go into a harbor. 

@. And you still adhere to your statement that this week’s fog would 
do more harm in the mild summer weather in the bay than all the storms 
and snows and rains on your own coast in winter? Did you not swear 
that the fog in the bay did more harm to the sails and rigging ot the 
vessels, and cause more wear and tear than all the wear and tear of 
your winter work on your own coast? Did you not state that more wear 
and tear was caused by fog in the bay than by all the storms on your 
own coast ?--A. No; I did not s“y that. 

Q. Did you not tell me so?—A. I did not say in the iter time; I 
said while fishing on the New England coast. 


Q. I will put the question again: Do you say that there is more dam- | 
age done the sails by summer weather in the bay than through wear and | 


tear in winter on your own coast ?—A. I think not. 
Q. Did you not tell mea little while ago that more wear and tear was 


sustained by your vessels in the bay in summer than on your own coast — 


in winter ?—-A. Well? 
Q. Did you not say that ?—A. I did not understand you. 


Q. Did you not say that? Did you say so or not ?—A. I did not put | 


it so strong as that. 


Q. Was that what you said or not ?—A. If I did say so I meaut that | 
one week’s fog in the bay would do more harm to a suit of sails than | 


would be done while fishing on our New England coast. 


Q. By all your winter’s fishing 7—A. I did not mean winter fishing, | 


but the same ai.ount of time on our coast. 
Q. That is to say that one week’s fog in the bay would do more harm 
than a week of winter weather on your coast ?—A. Yes. 


Q. But suppose you then happened to have for a week storms of snow | 


and rain, with frost, following each other, would this do more harm than 
the other alternative ?—A. Perhaps it would, but I think not. 

Q. You think that more damage would be done on your coast in such | 
weather as that 7—A. I do not understand you. 


q. I understood you first to say that more damage would be done in | 


the bay to a vessel, taking the season through, than wouid be done on 
your coast through all the storms of winter; and I understood you to | 
give as your reason for this that there might be a week’s fog there; and 
now you say you only meant that if a vessel was in a fog for a week in | 
the bay this would do as much damage as during a week of winter 
weather on your own coast; will you swear that a week’s fog in the bay | | 
is as bad, or anything like it, as a week’s storm of rain and snow, with | 
frost and thaw following, one after another, on your own coast in win- 
ter ?7—A. Well, I do not know that it would. I do not think that it 
would. 

Q. I am told that there is no such thing as a week’s fog i in the bay.) 
Tell me in what year you saw that fog?—A. I saw it in 1851 and in, 


1853 
Q. You were there in 1851 and 1852 ?—A. Yes. 
Q. And in 1853 ?7—A. Yes. 
Q. You only saw it in 1851 ?—A. And in 1853—yes. 
. You did not see it in 1852 at all?—A. Yes; we then had a fog. 
. You saw it in 1851 ?—A. Yes. 


Q 

& 

Q. During how long a time ?—A. I could not say. : 
Q 

Q 


. For a week ?—A. I think so, and more. 
. More than a week ?—A. I think so. 


; 
t 


4% 
ss 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ame 2 i | 


Q. Did you see it in 1852?—A. Yes; but I would not say for how 
lon 

. Had you continuous fog for a week ?—A. No; I do not mean that 
it lasted for a weck through at a time. 

Q. You mean separate foggy days during the season made up a 
week ?—A. They made more than that. 

. You never saw such a thing as a weék’s continuous fog in the 
bay ?—A. I could not swear that, but still in my mind it is very clear 
that we had over a week’s fog. 

Q. Continuously 7—A. I am not swearing positively to it. 
Q. Will you swear that yon saw anything like a week’s continuous 
fog in 1852 ?—A. No. 
Q. Orin 1853 ?—A. I should. 
Q. You that year saw a week’s continuous fog ?—A. I think so. 
Q. Where ?—A. Between Bonaventure and the island down toward 
the Magdalen Islands—between the island and the Magdalen Islands. 
Q. Uut in the center of the gulf?—A. Yes; on Banks Orphan and 
Bradley. 
Q. And that lasted a week ?—A. I think so. 
Q. What did you dou ail that time ?—A. We tried for mackerel. 
Q. Could you tell where you were?—A. We could teli that pretty 
| nearly. 
Q. How far were you from the Magdalen Islands when thé fog came 
'on?—A. I could not tell. I was then only a hand on the vessel. 
Q. Were you a sharesman ?7—A,. Yes. 
Q. How long is it since you left for Denmark ?—A. Well, it is over 
thirty years ago. 
Q. That would be in 1847; and in 1851 you went fishing in the bay; 
what did you do in the mean time?—A. I went to sea. 
| Q. Where ?—A. On foreign voyages. 
| Q. I suppuse that, like most emigrants, when you caine to America, 
| you did not come with money of your own ?—A. No, I do not think 
that I did. 
| Q. Whatever money you made, you made in this country ?—A. Yes. 
. Q. In 1851, when you first went fishing in the gulf, you had not made 
‘much money ?—A. No; not much, but I had a little. 
Q. Where did you learn your trade of sailmaking ?7—A. In the United 
| States. 
' Q. When ?—A. I learned it during the winter in 1849, 1850, 1851, 
1852, and 1853. - 
Q. Then you did not fish at all in winter?—A. No, but I fished 
in the spring. 
__Q. In 1853, when you left fishing altogether, and went into business, 
| what capital did you bring into it?—A. I had but very little. 
| Q. Into what kind of business did you go?—A. Sailmaking and 
| Tigging. 
| Q. And at this business you made your money ?—A. Yes. . 
| .Q. Did I not understand you to say that you went into the fishing 
business in 1853 ?—A. No. 
oe. did you first go into the fishing business?—A. In 1864, I 
D 
| Q. And then you put $14,000 or $15,500 of capital into the busi- 
; ness ?—A. Yes. 
Ma 


| Q. And you had made this altogether by rigging 7—A. Yes; rigging 
and sailmaking. 
I Q. How many vessels did you send into the bay in the course of time 


4] 


; : 
, a 
> ee. v 
it \ 
is wi 


2774 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


you were engaged in business?—A. We had four that went into the bay 
principally. 

. Did you go with them yourself?—A. No. 

. Did you send captains ?—A. Yes. 

. And were these captains part owners with you?—A. Yes. 

. Do you know where those vessels fished ?—A. I could not tell. 
. You do not know whether they fished inshore or not ?—A. No. 

. Did you never inquire? Did they do a good business ?—A. No; 
they did not do much. 

Q. Did they get the same average catches which you obtained from 
1851 to 1853?—A. Some years they did and some years they did not. 

Q. Were the prices of mackerel then very low ?—A. No; they were 
fair. 

Q. Did those vessels in which you went into the bay in 1851, 1852, 
and 1853 make money ?—A. No. 

Q. Did they lose ?—A. I do not think that they made anything. 

Q. Will you tell me how it was that with the full knowledge which 
you had of the fishing business in the bay—it being either a losing | 
business or one in which you did not make money—you were tempted 
to go into the business of sending vessels to the bay; you had had | 
personal experience that the fisheries in the bay were good for noth- 
ing ?—A. I had heard that a good many vessels had made money in the | | 

' 


OODLDD 


fishing business, and I went into it with the intention of making money, 
but I found that I was mistaken. 

Q. You had heard that a good many vessels went into the bay and | 
made money ?—A. Yes, some. 

Q. Although your experience personally was entirely against it?— | 
A. Yes. ' 

Q. In 1851, when you made two trips and caught 300 and 325 barrels, 
what was the size of the vessel ?—A. I think about 80 tons. 

Q. What would be a full fare ?—A. 300 or 325 barrels. ; 

Q. When you made those two trips, did you go both times back to | | 
Gloucester ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you got full fares on both occasions ?—A. Yes. |e 

Q. In 1852, when you got 350 barrels, was it the same vessel 7—A. | 4 
Yes. 

Q. That was a full fare?—A. Yes. q 

Q. You told me a full fare was 325 barrels 7—A. We carried some on 
deck. . 
Q. Did you fish in 18539—A. Yes. i 

. What was your fare then ?—A. 180 barrels. | 

(). The same vessel ?—A. No. 

Q. What tonnage was the vessel ?—A. About the same tonnage, I | 
think. Her name was Vienna. 

Q. You did not get a full fare ?—A. No. | 

Q. On that occasion you swear you only fished on Bradley and Orphan 
Banks ?—A. On the first year I swear that. 

Q. [ speak of the last year, when you caught 182 barrels ?—A. I do. 

Q. That was not a full fare ?—A. No. 

Q. What time did you leave the bay IA. 1 think about the Ist No- | 
vember. 

Q. What time did you go into the bay ?—A. In July. 

Q. Though you only got 180 barrels, which was not a full fare by 120 
barrels, you never, during the whole time, went inshore at all?—A. We | | 
went inshore. | 

Q. Did you go inshore ?—A. We tried inshore. | 

| 


| 
a 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2775 


Q. Where?—A. Coming out of Cascumpeque and Malpeque. 
_ Q. Was that within the three miles ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Did you try in Bay Chaleurs?—A. Yes. 
Q. At Margaree?—A. Yes. 
Q. Did you get any mackerel?—A. There were no mackerel! there that 
year. We tried, also, off Port Hood, and did not get any there. 
Q. Then there were no mackerel at all inshore that year?—A. We 
did not get any. 
Q. Were there any catches made in the bay that year 1—A, Yes. 
Q. And notwithstanding that catters were in the bay you went in- 
. shore to fish ?7—A. We tried coming out of harbors. I don’t suppose the 
cutters saw. 
Q. What did you goin for?—A. We went in for a harbor. I said 
that in coming out of harbors we tried. 
Q. All the trying you did was when you made for harbors, and tried 
coming out?—A. Yes. 
Q. You really did not try anywhere at all?—A. It is so long ago I 
eannot recollect. ; 
Q. Yet you recollect that in 1852 you caught 25 or 30 barrels at Mar- 
-, garee?—A. I recollect that because the cutter was coming down, and 
we got under way and stood out. 
Q. That was the reason you did not catch any more ?—A. Yes; I 
' have no doubt about it. 
Q. There was good fishing inshore there ?--A. Yes; very good. 
) Q. And you went out of the bay because you could not fish inshore? 
_. Did you try at Margaree in 1853?—A. There were no mackerel at Mar- 
| | Baree that year. 
| 
| 


Q. Did you try at the Magdalen Islands 1—A. Yes; we caught a few 
' there; very few. 
Q. In answer to Mr. Dana, you said you only fished on Bradley and 
Orphan Bauks, and did not fish inshore ?—A. That was where I caught 
| my fish. 
| Q. If you fished that year at Magdalen Islands, why did you not say 
| | so to Mr. Dana ?—A. We did not catch any mackerel there. I under- 
| Stood Mr. Dana wanted to know where we took our mackerel, and [ said 
_| at Banks Bradley and Orphan. We tried toward Magdalen Islands and 
| at Margaree and Prince Edward Island. 
Q. You mean you did try at Magdalen Islands, but did not catch 
) any 7—A. Yes. 
Q. How long. did you stay at Magdalen Islands?—A. We might have 
been there one or two days. 
Q. What time of the year was it ?—A. In September, I think. 
Q. Why did you go away from there ?—A. Itis no use to stay there 
if no mackerel are there. 
Q. Is it stormy round Magdalen Islands at all ?—A. Yes. 
oo Do you consider it an unsafe place to fish late in the season 7—A. 
Les. ; 
| Q. Is it usually so considered among fishermen ?—A. I believe so. 
Q. Is it one of the most’ dangerous places in the bay 7—A. I don’t 
| consider it half so dangerous as at Prince Edward Island. 
Q. What part of Prince Edward Island is twice as dangerous as 
Magdalen Islands ?—A. In the bend of the island. 
Q. Are there no harbors there ?—A. Yes; there are harbors, but they 
are hard harbors to get into. 
Q. Have you been there of late years to see if there are any harbors 
of refuge there ?—A. I have not. 


2776 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Are there not many more vessels lost at Magdalen Islands than at 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. I think not. 

Q. That is your idea?—A. Of late years there may have been. In 
former years more were lost at Prince Edward Island. 

Q. Do you mean to say that, excepting the year of the great Ameri- 
can gale ?—A. I take that in. 

Q. At what time of the year did that oceur?—A. I do not know 
whether in September or October. In October, I think. 

@. That is the season when few or no vessels are at Magdalen 
Islands ?—A. Yes. 


Q. They would leave Magdalen Islands and go fishing at Prince Ed. 


ward Island?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Don’t they fish around Prince Edward much later in the season 
than around Magdalen Islands?—A. Not at the bend of the island. 
Around East Point they do. 

Q. Were not a number of the vessels lost at East Point ?—A. Some 
were lost there, I think. 

Q. Then you swear that you believe Magdalen Islands to be a safer 
place than Prince Edward Island ?—A. I would rather fish there. There 
are more chances for a vessel to get out. 

Q. Why ?—A. There is a chance to go around the islands. 

Q. Is there not a chance to go around Prince Edward Island at the. 
northeast or north end ?—A. If you are near either end there is the 
same; if you are not nearone of the ends you have not much chance 
in a storm. 

Q. Cannot you go into the harbors ?—A. Suppose a vessel draws 12 
or 14 feet, she cannot go over the bars. 


Q. If the bar has less depth of water, of course she cannot. Do you | 


say the harbors have less than that ?—A. They had at that time; I don’t 
know what they are now. 

Q. In answer to Mr. Dana, you stated that you believe the inshore 
fishery is of no practical value to the United States ?—A. I should not 
consider it so. F 

Q. And did you so consider it in 1851, 1852, and 1853?—A. Yes. 

Q. Was that the general opinion fA I think that is the general 
opinion of everybody. 

Q. Amongst fishermen in 1851, 1852, and 1853, and ever since ?—A. 
Yes; I think so. 

Q. Did you ever hear any one among fishermen say to the contrary ?— 
A. I don’t know I ever heard anybody. 

Q. How do you account for their making such endeavors to get the 
right to fish inshore?—A. I did not know they made any endeavors. 

Q. In your judgment they are good for nothing?—A. I would not 
give one cent for the whole of them. 

Q. And you think that is the opinion of all the fishermen ?—A. I 
could not say what their opinion is. It is so, as far as I know. 

Q. And as far as you know is it the opinion of fish merchants ?—A. 
I could not say. 


Q. You were in that business yourself ?—A. I am not in business 


now. 
Q. You have stated that in your opinion the inshore fisheries are not | 
worth one cent, and that as far as you know that is the opinion of i A 
fishermen ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Is that the opinion of the fish merchants as well ?—A. I think 50. 
Q. I suppose that is the opinion in Gloucester, Boston, 2 any all along 
the coast of Massachusetts?—A. I think so. 


| 


——— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | 2777 


Q. And if any person, either a United States fisherman or otherwise, 
makes any trouble about getting the right to fish within the three miles 
for their vessels, you think he is foolish ?—A. I think so. I think they 
will be fools to pay anything for it. 

Q. If they can get the fishing without paying for it; they will not be 
fools?—A. There are very few fish inshore anyway. 

Q. Even now that is so?—A. I don’t know. I have not been there 
lately. I could not say. 

Q. You don’t know anything about it practically since 1853?—A. Not 
practically. ; 

Q. You seriously swear you would not give one cent for the inshore 
fisheries ?—A. At that time I would not. 

Q. That is in 1854. Have you heard that they have since been very 

» much better ?—A. I have not. 

Q. Would you rather have one cent in your pocket than the grant of 

all these fisheries ?—A. I think I should. © 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. I suppose you think, in that case, you would have to carry them 
 about?—A. Yes. 
Q. If you had a large number of vessels and you intended to send 
them to the bay to fish, would you send them if you had-to pay for the 
| right of inshore fishing ?—A. No; I would not. 
Q. And the result of your experience is that it would not pay to send 
| them into the bay to fish ?--A. No; as far as my experience goes. 
Q. About sails. Are there not great efforts nade to procure some- 
thing to prevent the effect of fog and mildew on sails?—A. Yes. 
Q. It is considered a very serious evil ?—A. Yes. 
@. More so than ordinary storm and rain ?—A. Yes. 
Q. I suppose seafaring-men, «hen they get into harbor, after a storm 
of wind and rain, dry the sails?—A. Yes. 
Q. A tew days of rain followed by sunshine would not hurt a vessel 
+ s0 much as long-continued dampness 7—A. No. 


No. 67. 


JAMES W. PATTILLO, of North Stoughton, Mass., retired fisherman, 
called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and 
examined. ; 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. How old are you?—Answer. 71 years on 29th September 
ast. 
Q. You have been affisherman in your day ?—A. Yes. 
Q. And have fished a good deal ?—A. All the way along from 1834 
to 1868. 
_Q. Were you fishing all that time?—A. The best part of it; some 
part of the time I was not. 
| Q. What were you doing when you were‘not fishing?—A. I was agent 
two years for the insurancé company. 
| Q. Whereabouts ?—A. Down at Cape Breton Island, at Port Hood, 


looking out for American vessels. ; 

Q. From 1834 to 1868, how often were you skipper ?—A. I was skip- 
per in 1838. 

a How many years ?—A. 1839, 1840, and all the way along pretty 
much. 


rm +s 


2778 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. All the while from 1840 to 1868?—A. Yes, all the time I was mas- 
ter except two years, when I did not go to the bay. 

Q. During that period of time have you been in the bay a good deal? . 
—A. Some years I went to the bay two trips, some years but one trip, 
and some years not at all. 

Q. Have you done any fishing on the American coast as well as in 
the bay ?—A. I have. 

Q. What sort of proportion does the fishing on the Aqabceat coast 
bear to the fishing in the bay? Did you fish most on your coast.or 
most in the bay?—A. I ‘fished more in the bay than on the coast, 
although [ have done fully better on our own shores in seasons than I 
ever have in the bay. 

Q. You say you went fishing first in 1834. Where did you go ?7—A. 

I did not go into North Bay in 1834. I fished on our own shores. 

Q. When was the first year you went into the bay 7?—A. In 1836, in 
the Good Hope. 

Q. When was the last year you were in the gulf ?—A. 1868. 

Q. Did you find any difference in the fishing in 1868 from what it was 
in 1836, and, if so, what was the difference ?—A. In 1836 we did but 
little. We had a large vessel, Good Hope, with 13 or 14 men, and got 
65 barrels. We proceeded there some time in July, and arrived home at 
the latter part of September. 

Q. How often after that did you go into the gulf? What is the total 
number of consecutive years you have beeu in the bay?—A. I have been 
there 21 trips. 

Q. You have then got a pretty good knowledge of what the gulf fish- | 
ing has been from 1836 to 1868.. How does the gulf fishing compare © 
now with what it was when you first went there 7—A. I have not been | 
there since 1868, and of what has been done since I have little knowl- | 
edge except what I have read. | 

‘Q. From 1836 to 1868, has there been a great change in the bay fish- 
ing, or was it pretty much the same ?—A. In the gulf it used to vary. — 
Some years there would be pretty good fishing, and other years it would — 
be pretty slim. 

Q. Where was your general fishing-place in the gulf ?—A. On Banks | 
Orphan and Bradley, and at Magdalen Islands. At Magdalen Islands 
I fished mostly always, and I found better fishing 15 or 20 miles from 
the land, on the north side of the Magdalens, and round Bird Rocks, | 
than anywhere else. I have caught-some mackerel along at Point Mis- * 
cou, in the range of North Cape, Prince Edward Island; but one-half of | 
the mackerel we got at Magdalen Islands and round Banks Bradley and | 
Orphan. 

Q. During these 21 years, how much fishing did you do within three 
miles of the land ?—A. To the best of my judgment, I will give you the 
facts. I had the day and date for all the items, but in 1863 we had a > 
fire, and it was burned up, and therefore I will give you them the best | 
I can from memory. I never thought anything about it till a week ago, | 
when I overhauled my memory, and I can give it to you. The first | 
year, in the Good Hope, we got 65 barrels of mackerel; none were | 
caught within the limits. I think we caught about 35 barrels in one | 
day, about 8 or 10 miles to the northward of Magdalen Islands. | 

Mr. THOMSON called attention to a memorandum from which witness 
Was reading. 

WITNESS said the paper was a memorandum he had made out of the | 
years he had been in North Bay and where he caught the mackerel. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. : 2779 


| Mr. Toomson. If your books were lost and your memory does not 
serve you, how did you make up the paper?—A. From my memory. 

Q. Why did you make up the paper ?—A. I made it up to be accurate, 
and so that if I was asked questions, I might not mix up voyages. 

Mr. THomson. Then I understand you to state that you sat down and 
made up that paper from your recollection ?—A. Yes. 

Examination resumed. 

Witness. The next mackerel we got was somewhere about 40 wash- 
barrels, about twenty miles broad off St. Peter’s. That was all the 
mackerel we got to make up 65 barrels. Those were 65 sea-barrels, — 
which we carried to Cape Ann. The second year, 1837, | was in the 
Mount Vernon, and we caught 300 barrels of mackerel. We caught 
200 barrels broad off to an anchor within half a mile of the land; and 
100 barrels we caught 10, 15, or 20 miles from the land. 

Mr. TREscoT. Where did you catch them?—A. At Margaree Island 
or Sea Cove Island. It was on 13th October, I remember it well, and 
we filled up. In 1838 I was master of the same Good Hope, and we got 
270 barrels. I think, according to the best of my judgment, we got 50 
barrels of them within three miles of fhe land, but I think, to the best 
of my judgment, the rest were taken in our own waters, 5, 10, 15 or 20 
miles from the land. In 1839 I wasin the Tiger, and got 75 barrels. We 

caught them all off shore, that is, without the three-mile limit. In 1840 

_ Iwas not in the bay; I fell from the mast-head and broke my thigh. 

| In 1841 [ was in the bay twice in the Abigail. The first trip we got 
250 barrels on Banks Bradiey and Orphan. The second trip we got 75 

_» barrels up at the bend of the island, making 325 barrels for the season. 
| In 1842, 1843, and 1844, I was fishing on our shores in the Hosea Blue. 
| In 1845 and 1846 I fished on our shores. In 1848 [ fished on our shores 
in the Alexander. In 1849 I was at home. In 1850 | was in the Alex- 

| ander on our shores. In 1851 I was in the bay in the Alexander, and 
| made two trips; that was the year of the gale. On the first trip, I 
caught, between Point Miscou and North Cape, 314 barrels. I landed 

| them at Arichat, with a member of tbe house named Martel, and he 
| advanced me the money to fit out the second time. The next trip I got 
| 214 barrels after the gale. To the best of my judgment I got from 75 to 
100 barrels within the limits. We got them in two or three days after 
_ the gale. Some of them made out we were within the limits, so I went 
| home; I thought it was no use to continue. Captain Derby was kind 
| of chasing us, so I went home. I had to come to Arichat and get my 
| $14 barrels. In 1852 I caught 335 barrels; and I caught them from the 
| north part of Anticosti up to Seven Islands, right in the gulf, 15 or 20 miles 
| from land. We were about in the range off from the northwest part of 
_ Anticosti to Seven Islands, and up the gulf. That was in the Alexander. 

| | In 1853 I had the schooner Highland Lass, and got 400 barrels. [ caught 
|| them between Point Miscou, say 10 or 15 miles off Miscou, and up the 
| West shore, 8 or 10 miles along, at Escuminac. I caught half of them 
| toan anchor. It was the year when the vessel was new. Those are all 
| S@a-barrels. The next year, 1854, I got 300 barrels. In 1855 I had 
Christie Campbell, a new vessel. The Highland Lass wasin the bay. A 
man named Samuel Chambers was in her; I know he did not do a great 
deal, but I don’t know what he got. On the first trip I got 250 barrels 
on Banks Bradley and Orphan; on the second trip [ caught 200 barrels 
| at Magdalen Islands. In 1856 I got 285 barrels. I caught the prinei- 
| pal part of them on Fisherman’s Bank, between Cape George and George- 
| town. I got about 100 barrels there at the last of the month; it wound 


2780 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


up my fare, on, I think, 19th October. In 1847 I was in the gulf again 
and got 330 barrels. I caught them at Magdalen Islands, off Blackland, 
and some down round the Bird Rocks. We caught them round Bird 
Rocks to an anchor, and the balance off Blackland, on the north side of 
the Magdalens. In 1858 I was agent for the insurance company. In 
1859 I was at home. I had a man to go in her, so I staid at home. In 
1860 I was again agent for the insurance company, looking after Ameri- 
can vessels. In 1861 I went to the gold diggings, down at Wine Har- 
bor, and bought an old claim for $60; but I did not get much gold. In 
1862 I was in the Rose Skerrit, and got two trips of mackerel. The first 
trip of 350 barrels I got off Blackland, at Magdalen Islands; the second 
trip I got 400 barrels, making 750 barrels in short of three months, and 
we went home and landed them. We caugbt the first trip in twelve 
days, and the second we took in twenty days. We got our trips all 
round the Magdalens, and perhaps half-way from Entry Island to East 
Point. 

Q. Did you get any within the three miles ?—A. Not one of them. In 
1863 I went in Oliver Cromwell and got 940 barrels. I made but one 
trip. I sent home 560 barrels, I think. I could not pretend to say toa 
barrel. I think I landed the first trip, 330 barrels, at Maguire’s in the 
Gut, and the next trip we landed, making 560 barrels. That is to the 
best of wy memory. Before we came home we made it up to 950 barrels. 

Q. Where did you catch those ?—A. I caught half of the first trip be- 
tween Entry Island and Cheticamp, about half way. We had Entry 
Island in sight, 25 miles off, and sometimes not quite so far. It is known 
to be a good fishing ground, and there we got one-half of our mackerel 
on the first trip. Of the rest of the mackerel, we caught some within 
the limits; I don’t know just how many. I could not pretend to say on 
my oath, but we gotsome. We got them in Georges Bay, between Cape 
George and Cape Patrick, in Antigonish Bay. Of these 940 barrels, we 
probably got 100 barrels within the limits; I think that is a large esti- 
mate of what we got there. I think it would be honest and fair, as be- 
tween man and man, to say 100 barrels, which would be as much as we 
got inshore, to the best of my judgment. In 1864 I went in the schooner 
Scotland. She was 125 tons. We got 500 barrels that trip. We got 
half of them on Banks Bradley and Orphan; some up off Point Miscou. 
The next year, 1865, I went two trips in her. The first trip I got 370 
barrels; we got all of them on Banks Bradley and Orphan; and on the 
second trip when we caught them, the east point of the island was west- 
southwest of us 15 or 20 miles. We got a deck of mackerel there acci- 
dentally. We were becalmed and hove to and got 100 or 120 wash-barrels 
there. We got half of the trip there, and we got the rest of that trip 
between East Point and Port Hood. In 1866 I was at home; I went to 
the Banks. In 1867 I was one trip in the Scotland and got about 400 _ 
barrels. I cannot tell you exactly, but I think not one barrel was taken 
inshore. We caught them between Prince Edward Island and Point 
Miscou. In 1868 I caught 450 barrels. I.got them in the bay and 
caught 350 barrels on our own shore before I started. I made two trips 
on the Georges before I went to the bay. I went out and was gone ten 
days and got 130 barrels; I went again and got 220 barrels, making 350 
barrels in, I guess, not over 25 or 28 days, and I got-the balance of the | 
fall trip making 450, and also making 750 barrels for that year. 

Q. Where did you get the 450 barrels ?—A. I got half of them between , 
pane. Island and Prince Edward Island, and some to the north of ose | 

ape 


=a x 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . 2781 


THURSDAY, October 18, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


The examination of JAMES W. PATTILLO was resumed. 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Question. I see you are stated to belong to North Stoughton; were 
you born there?—Answer. No; | was born in Chester, Lunenburg County, 
Nova Scotia, September 29, 1806. 

Q. Without giving precise details of your catches during your 21 years 
of experience in the bay as a fisherman, will you tell me what proportion 
of the fish you caught during this period was taken within the 3-mile 
limit ?—A. Possibly 10 per cent.—10 barrels out of 100; and I think 
that would be a large proportion, because during the 21 seasons I was 
in the bay the most mackerel I ever so caught was in my second year. 

Q. Being a fisherman of that experience, what sort of advantage do 
you think it is to have the right to fish within the 3-mile limit in British 
waters; do you attach much importance to it ?—A. Well, if I had to go 
in the bay J should not calculate that inshore fishing was worth any- 
thing at all. I would only go inshore to make harbors and dress fish. 
I would not give a snap of my finger for the inshore fisheries. When 
licenses cost 50 cents a ton I would not pay it. I would rather fish in 


| my own waters, because I could do better there. 


Q. You never took a license out ?—A. I never did. I was for three 
in the bay when they were issued, but I would not take one out. 

did not want them. 

Q. You were then master of your own vessel ?—A. Yes; I owned the 
vessel and was master. 

Q. And you ran the risk ?—A. I fished in my own waters, 3, 4, 5, 10 
and 20 miles off land, and I always did better there than inshore. I 
would not give a cent for the inshore fisheries. All I would go inshore 
for would be to make a harbor. 

Q. You never had any trouble with the cutters?—A. No; save once 
when they chased me. 

Q. But that was no trouble ?—A. O, no; it was only for doing a.kind 


| act. 


Q. Besides having fished for 21 years in the bay, did you fish much 


» Ob our own coast ?—A. I did. 


Q. How does the fishing on our coast compare with the fishing in the 


' bay 7—A. I have myself always done better on our own shore, with the 
' exception of one year, than I ever didin North Bay. 


Q. During how many years did you fish on our shore ?—A. I think I 
fished there 8 seasons, or somewhere about that; it was perhaps a little 
more, but I know I fished there 8 years. 

Q. If you found the fishing on our shore so much better than the fish- 
ing in the bay, why did you go to the bay ?—A. Well, there was just 
one principle on which we used mostly to go to the bay; the fact is that 
when we shipped a crew at Cape Cod, after we had been off for a fort- 
night or 3 weeks on our shore, men would leave the vessel; but when 
we got a crew and came to North Bay, they had to stay on board; 
there was then no back door to crawl out of. This was one of the chief 
reasons for coming to the bay, as we then had no trouble in the shipping 
of hands, good} bad, or indifferent ; but when we were down on our shore, 
men would go off and we would have to secure new hands. Men would 
think they might do better, and they would go where the high line was; 
and we were then under the necessity of supplying their places. Another 
thing was,-that by going to the bay, we got clear of the fog. On our 


2782 - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


coast there is a great deal of fog, but when we reach North Bay, we get 
clear of it. 

Q. You say that in the gulf your fishing was done on the Banks and 
toward the Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes; we caught the heft of our 
mackerel invariably around the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. As a fishing ground, taking it all in all, are the Magdalen Islands 
much worse than Prince Edward Island ?—A. They are better than 
Prince Edward Island. 

Q. You did not fish much about Prince Edward Island ?—A. I never 
did a great deal. I tried around there, but I never caught many fish 
there. . 

Q. You are sure that you never took a license out ey Yes; Lam 

sure that I never took a license out. I never paid a red cent for a 
license. 
By Mr. Thomson : 


Q. You never took out a license ?—A. No. 

Q. Where were you in 1866 ?—A. At home. 

Q. Do you know of a vessel belonging to Gloucester called the Scot- 
land?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you own her?—A. Yes. 

Q. Was she in the bay in 1866 ?—A. I do not recollect whether she 
was or not. 

Q. How happens it, since you have given most extraordinary evi- 
dence of having a good memory, recollecting not only what you did 30 
years ago, but the very days of the month when events occurred, that 
you do not remember where the Scotland was in 1866, and what she 
was then doing ?—A. I think that Captain Bartlett went in her that 
year to the Banks, fresh halibuting—down at St. Peter’s Bank. 

Q. And she did not go to the bay at all that year ?—A. I think not. 

Q. Can you swear positively that she did not ?—A. No; I cannot; 
but to the best of my recollection she did not go to the bay that year. 

Q. Did any of your vessels, when you were not in them, take out 
licenses ?—A. Not that I know of. 

Q. Can you swear that the Scotland did not take out a license in 
1866, and did not fish in the Bay in 1866?—A. Well, she might have 
then been in the bay; I was not in her. I never paid for a license to 
my knowledge in my life. 

Q. I presume that the captain would not pay for a license out of his. 
own pocket ?—A. Well, I cannot recollect paying for one. I know that 
I did not do so when I was in her myself. 

Q. How happens it, if your memory is so good, that you cannot 
remember this? You surprised me by stating as far back as 30 years. 
ago, not only what you did during a particular year, but also what you 
did on the 18th and 19th of October ?—A. The 18th and 19th of Octo- 
ber ? 

Q. I think so—A. No; but I recollect catching mackerel in the 
Mount Vernon, on the 11th, 12th and 13th of October, when we took 200. 
barrels. I recollect that as well as if it had only happened yesterday. 
My memory serves me better concerning events which happened some 
40 years ago, than for those that have occurred somewhat recently. 

Q. That was in 1837 ?—A. Yes. e 

Q. Forty years ago ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You not only recollect what you then did, but also the very days' 
of the month in this regard ?—A. That is true. I do so recollect it. 


@. I do not mean to say that your memory is not quite accurate ; 


but it surprises me to find that with such an exceedingly retentive) 


Paeel ae 


— -—  e=&==_— —— ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. .” 2783 


memory, you fail to remember where the Scotland went in 1866 ?7—A. 
Well, I can recollect events that happened 40 and 50 years ago better 
than anything which happened yesterday. I had everything that 
occurred as I went along, until I was burned out; until then I had 
manuscripts referring to all my voyages and cruises, and everything 
else that I did; and in this statement [ have given the facts just as they 
occurred, as well as my memory serves me. I give you the truth on 
both sides just as faithfully as [ would if I were to dia this very minute. 
I want to give you the exact truth. , 

Q. I don’t dispute that.—A. That is it. 

Q. Lam not charging you with making any willful mistake; but I wish 
to see whether you are in error.—A. I may be in error. 

Q. You say that all the memoranda which you kept concerning your 
voyages have been lost; why did you keep such written memoranda ?— 
A. Lalways kept them, in order to know what I did, whereabouts I was, 
and how much money I made, as I most always owned the whole of all 
the vessels I had, though I did not own the whole of the Scotland. I 
never kept such account further than concerned what expenses were 
paid, and what balance belonged to me; and in this way I knew how 
much I made, after I had completed my voyage and paid all charges; 
then if 1 made $1,000, I thus knew that I made it such a year; and if I 


| made $2,000, I put that down for such or such a year, clear of living and 
| expenses. Sometimes it was more, and sometimes it was less; but sach 
_ as it was, I made a memorandum of it, to which I could refer ‘and know 
a exactly where I stood. I never went into debt, and I always aig 
| as I went. 


Q. After you made such memoranda, you would have no occasion ‘to 


| refer to them again ?—A. No; but I always could do soif any questions 
| arose rendering it desirable. 


Q. Had you occasion to refer back tothem; nothing occurred to make 


\ this necessary until this occasion arose ?—A. No 


Q. When did you last read them ?—A. I have not read any paper 


' concerning my voyages since I knocked off fishing, and my last year’s 


fishing was in 1868. I have not thought of doing so. 
Q. I presume that when you read the record of 1868, or of 1867, you 


would not have gone back to the extent of 30 years previously—to 1837, 


or 1838? Nothing had then happened to call your attention to such 


| matters?—A. No; nothing has occurred in the fishing business in 
) which I have been in any way or shape interested, since I left off fish- 
| ing, and 1868 was my last year. 


Q. In 1868, when you made your last memorandum on the subject of 
your fishing voyages, you had no occasion to turn over and read your 


| Manuscripts as far back as 1837 ?—A. Well, then I had no manuscripts 
_ to refer to. 


Q. Did you make memoranda concerning what you did in 1868?—A. 
After my manuscripts were burned up, I never made any such memo- 


| vanda at all. 


Q. When were they burned up ?—A. In 1863 or 1864, I think. 

Q. Then you did not make any such memoranda afterward ?—A. No. 

Q. I suppose you made memoranda respecting what you did in 1863, 
or 18627—A. They were burned up. 

Q. Did you do so in 1862 7—A. I think so. 

Q. When you had done so, did you then have occasion to refer back 
to previous entries as far back as 1837 7—A. No. 

Q. After you had made an entry for any particular year, nothing é¢ver 
occurred to call your attention back to those entries until after the books 


2784 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


which contained them were burned 7?—A. No; I never referred to them, 
but often when we got together we would talk over what we had done 
such and such a year; we would talk over at the fireside what we had 
done in a vessel—say in 1836, 1837, or 1838—telling how many mackerel 
we got and how much money we made, and all that, in common talk. 
We would refer to these matters time and time again, telling who was 
high-line, and all what happened. We used to talk over these subjects 
in that way. 

Q. Although you did talk over what you did in these different years, 
you never referred to this memorandum-book to verify your state- 
ments ?—A. No. 

* @. Then it comes to this, that although you had a memorandum- 
book, you never referred to it at all to assist your memory ?7—A. No; 
not a bit. 

Q. With this extraordinary memory, the accuracy of which I do not 
dispute—recollecting not ouly what you did 40 years ago but the very 
days of the month on which certain events happened, yet you cannot 
tell me whether in 1866, 11 years ago, your vessel, the Scotland, went 
into the bay to fish or not ?7—A. Well, she went halibuting that year. 

Q. But she did not go into the bay 7—A. No; she went to St. Peter’s 
Bank and the Western Bank. 

Q. But that is not the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. Well, she might 
have gone up above Seven Islands, where a good many halibut used te 
be got: 

Q. That lies south of the coast of Labrador and north of the island 
of Anticosti ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Did she go there to catch balibut?—A. She might have done so; I 
was not in her. She was in charge of Captain Bartlett at the time. 

Q. Your captain would surely tell you where he had been and where 
he had caught his fish? This would be your first question?—A. As 
long as he had halibut that was the chief thing I looked after. 

Q. Ido not think you would be content with merely knowing that? 
You would ask him where he had been and where he had caught 
his fish ?—A. Sometimes 1 might do so and sometimes I might not. 


Q. Did you, in point of fact, ask and discover from bim where he had 


been and what he had caught that year?—A. I could not answer that 


question ; I could not say whether I did so or not; I might possibly 


have done so, and I might not. 


Q. Then I am right in stating that, notwithstanding your good mem-* — 


ory, you do not recollect whether your vessel, the Scotland, went in 
1866 into the gulf or not?—A. Well, I am pretty positive in saying that 
she did not go there that year mackereling. 

Q. Did she go there at all, for halibut or any other fish ?—A. Not 
that I know of; that is not within my recollection. 

Q. You have no recollection of Captain Bartlett having taken out a 
license in the bay that year?—A. No. 

Q. Do you recollect what the license-fee was that year ?—A. It might 
have been $1 for all I know, and it might have been 50 cents. 

Q. What was the tonnage of the Scotland?—A. 123, carpentet’s| 
measurement, and I think one hundred and something new tonnage. I 
think that I paid for 125 or 130 tons, when I bought her. 

(. Did they measure the tonnage by carpenter’s measurement in 
levying fees?—A. That I cannot tell. 

- Q. The fee would be at least $50, if they charged 50 cents per ton, or. 
$120 if $1 a ton was charged.—A. Yes. 

Q. That sum would not be paid by the captain ?—A. I suppose that 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2785 


it would come out of the common stock—the whole stock; one-half 

would be paid by the crew, and one- half by the owner. I suppose so— 

I do not know ; but that is my impression. 

Q. In the report concerning the issue of fishing licenses, for fishing 
inshore in Canadian waters, it is stated that in 1866 a license was taken 
out by the Scotland, J. W. Pattils, of Gloucester, Mass.2?—A. There is 
no person of that name. James W. Pattillo is my name. 

Q. The name entered here is J. W. Pattils—probably a misprint—and 
the tonnage of the Scotland is given as 78; that, I suppose, would be 
ordinary tonnage, not carpenter’s measurement TA, I suppose so. 

Q. How many men did she carry ?—A. Sometimes 14 and some- 
times 15. 

Q. She is represented here as having 16 men, and as having paid 50 
cents per ton for the license, amounting in all to $38.50. There was no 
other Scotland, J. W. Pattils, of Gloucester, Mass.; and yet vou see that 
she did take out a license that year 7—A. How is that name spelled ? 

Q. Pattils—A. My name is spelled Pattillo. 

Q. There is no person that spells his name Pattils, that you are aware 
_of, in Gloucester ?—A. No. 

Q. And your initials are J. W.2—A. Yes. 

Q. Can you undertake to say that this entry is wrong, and that such 
_alicense was never taken out ?—A. Well, I would not pretend to say 
that statement is wrong; but I have no recollection of this having been 
_ the case. 

Q. At all events, if the captain took it in your absence, and withont 

your knowledge, he had more respect for the inshore fisheries than you 

have now, apparently 7—A. Well, I never paid a cent for a license to 
| my knowledge, though I might have paid for that, but I do not recollect 
of having done so. I never.considered inshore fishing i in the bay worth 
__ 50cents, nor yet would I pay 25 cents for the privilege. 
| Q. In answer to Mr. Trescot, you stated you thought that the fishing 
| off the American coast was better than the fishing around Prince Edward 
Island and in the bay ?—A. I think so. 
| Q. You spoke of the American coast as “our shore,” and in the same 
| breath you said you were born in Nova Scotia ?—A. I have been natu- 
| valized ; and I now call that our shore. I have become a citizen of the 
| United ’States. 
QQ. When were you naturalized ?—A. In 1836, I think ; I have the 
| | papers to show. 
_ _Q. The oath you have thus taken is not merely, I believe, an oath of 
_ jallegiance as a citizen of the United States, but also an oath of abroga- 
| tion of allegiance to Queen Victoria and the sovereigns of Great Brit- 
- ain?—A. I think that when I was sworn, which was in open court, I 
_ swore to be true to the United States of America, and I also swore alle- 
| _giance against Great Britain and Ireland and all’ Her Majesty’s domin- 
ions. 

Q. Ithoughtso.—A. And I have trie to be loyal to the United States 
ever since.  . 

Q. You came from Nova Scotia, and you say you swore allegiance 

‘against Nova Scotia when you took this oath ?—A. Well, I wanted to 
have the right and privilege of any citizen, and I could not secure that 
without going through this preliminary. 
, Q. And after that you tried to keep your oath, and you have been 
heart and soul an American citizen ever since ?—A. Yes; certainly. « 
| @. And you regard this question, which is, now to be determined by 
; > 316 ¥ 


i 


St 


2786 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


these Cominissioners, from an American stand-point ?—A. Yes; of course - 
I do. 

@. And I suppose you take quite an interest in seeing the Commis- 
sioners award nothing, or as little as possible, against the United 
States?—A. Well, I took no thought of it—good, bad, or indifferent— 
until I was invited to come down here; and that was a week ago yester- 
day. I have tried to overhaul my memory the best I[ could, and I have 
done the best I could. If anybody could could do it any better, I would 
like to have him try it. Ihave done the best I could, and if I have done 
wrong, I have not intended it. I would not lie for the Commission, 
whether they give fifteen millions or not. 

Q. Do not misunderstand me. I am not charging you with lying or © 
anything of that kind.—A. No; I would not do it. 

Q. Tell me why, having this memory, and considering the fact that 
your memoranda were destroyed, you wrote down memoranda on that | 
paper ?—A. I could tell all the things just as they came along, but I | 
wanted to be accurate, and I did not know but they might begin at one 
_ end or the other, and I wanted it to refer to. 

Q. You have been examined before you came here ?—A. I have merely | 
talked it over. 

@. You had no idea of Mr. Trescot puzzling you ?—A. He asked me | 
a word or two; but I did not then refer to any particular year—good, 
bad, or indifferent. 

Q. You had no idea of his entrapping you ?—-A. Well, I did not know 
but what you might catch me. 

Q. You have stated you do not think that the inshore fisheries in the 
gulf are worth anything at all?—A. No ; I do not. 

Q. And you say that you never took out a license, but I see that one 
of your vessels took out a license; hence, her captain entertained a dif- 
ferent opinion from yourself in this regard; are you really serious in 
saying that they are worth nothing at all?—-A. No; they arenot. The 
fish of the sea, on any shore, are not worth anything. 

Q. Then your idea is that these inshore fisheries ought not to be paid 
for by the United States, because the fish in the sea are nobody’s fish 
until they are caught?—A. That is it; I never thought that the fish- 
eries inshore were worth anything. 

Q. For this reason, because they are not caught ?—A. Well, that is 
one reason for it. ed 

Q. You did catch fish inshore on several occasions ; you took more 
than half one trip—100 barrels or upwards inshore ?—A. I was then a 
hand, and was along with William Forbes in the Mount Vernon; that 
was a very poor year when very few mackerel were taken in the whole || 
bay. : . 

Q. Even so, but you then caught one-half of your trip inshore ?—A. | . 
We tc ok two-thirds of it, 200 barrels. 

Q. Inshore?—A. Yes; within half a mile of the island. That was | 
my second year fishing. : 

Q. The privilege of fishing inshore was worth something that year ?— 
A. We made a little out of it that time. 

Q. If you could do that again, the inshore fishing would be worth 
something ?—A. I have tried it a number of times, but I could never do 
anything of any account inshore. : 

Q. O, yes, you did afterward to some extent ?—A. Well, while I was 
in the Oliver Cromwell I caught 940 barrels, and I think about 100 bar- 
rels of these were taken inshore. I did not go home with my first catch 
that year, but I sent fish home twice. I shipped from Canso 330 bar-| 


— * 


ae” fF 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2787 


_rels, I think, the first time, and 230 barrels, or thereabouts, the second 
time, and the rest I carried home. 

Q. Did you pack them out in Canso?—A. No; I only landed them 
there. 

Q. Why ?—A. I landed them because this was during the war, and 
the men were afraid of being drafted, and if 1 had gone home, I would 
have had to hire men for the purpose at Canso. Cruisers were burning 
everything up, and so I got a letter of marque and got all prepared. I 
obtained a license from the Secretary of War over at Charlestown, and 
I fitted out my vessel with a six-pounder and shot and cutlasses, and 
everything necessary for us to fight our way; and I !anded the fish and 
made only one trip that season, because the men were afraid to return 
lest they should be drafted. 

Q. You fitted out not against British but Southern cruisers, and your 
meu were afraid of being drafted into the northern army ?—A. I fitted 
out against any one who should trouble me anyhow ; and I was deter- 
mined, if necessary, to fight my way. If that bark had come across 
me, I would have done my best to take her. 

Q. Which bark ?—A. The one that burned the vessels about George’s 

- Bank. 

Q. The Alabama ?—A. No; but an old bark—the Tacony. 

Q. She was a Southern cruiser ?—A. I do not know that, but I meant 
‘to have taken her if Icould. The fact is, I was all cut and dried for 
i her. The people of Halifax all came down to look at my vessel. I had 
| @ six-pounder on board, and 24 rounds of round shot, and 24 rounds of 
| grape, and bags of powder, and everything else required; while each 
» man had a cutlass and a revolver. I paid $800 for that outfit. 

Q. When was this?—A. It was in 1863. 

Q. Your men were afraid of going back to your coast lest they should 
| be drafted into the Northern army ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you were afraid of being captured by this Southern cruiser ?— 
_A. I was not afraid, not a bit. 

Q. Well, lest you should be so captured, you armed yourself to show 
fight ?—A. Yes, I did. 

_  Q. You had no other object ; you did not intend to fight any vessels 
/except Southern cruisers ?—A. No, of course not. I intended to go 
| along peaceably if I was left alone. 

Q. You told Mr. Trescot that, though the fisheries on your coast are 
| better than those in the gulf, you preferred to go to the gulf in order to 
_keep your crews together ?—A. That is so. 

Q. Was not that a great convenience to you ?—A. Yes; and besides 
/ we thus got clear of the fogs which prevail a great deal on our coast 

during the sumer. After we get through Canso, into North Bay, we 
(Meet with little fog. 

Q. Have you any fog on your coast in winter ?—A. Yes, sometimes; 
but not very often. 

Q. It is a stormy place to fish in winter, on your coast 7—A. Some- 
times it is and sometimes it is not. 

Q. But taking the season through, it is a stormy coast?—A. All coasts 
are stormy in winter; but our coast is not then so stormy as the coast 

,atound the British Provinces and in the gulf. 

Q. A large portion of the gulf freezes up in winter?—A. Yes; but I 
have been in the gulf till near Christmas for produce on the north side 
of Prince Edward Island. ; 

_ Q. Without getting frozen up ?—A. I did not get frozen up. I think 
I left Malpeque on the 17th of November. 


eh 
i” dw } 


a ‘ : oy 


2788 AWARD’ OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Is not the weather on your coast in winter very hard on the rig- 
ging of vessels—on the sails, and so on ?—A. Yes. 

Q. It is a good deal harder on them than is summer or fall weather in 
the bay, before the stormy season sets in?—A. Certainly; more wear 
and tear is suffered in this regard in winter than in sammer on any coast. 

Q. You admit, then, that if it was not for the bay fishing in your time, 
you could not have kept the crews together, as you could not do so on 
your own coast ?—A. Well, that was one reason why I went to the bay; 
when we lost a man on our shore we could get another, but this ocea- 
sioned loss of time. 

Q. You could not keep your crews there?—A. When we would lose 
one we could find another to replace him, but this caused loss of time. 

Q. And time is money ?—A. Of course. 

Q. Therefore you made more money by taking your crews to the gulf 
than you could have made if you had fished on your shore, losing and 
replacing men the while?—A. I suppose that sometimes we would thus 
make more money and sometimes we would not; we had to ran the risk 
of it. 

Q. You saved yourself inconvenience and came to the gulf?—A. I 
used to go there some seasons, when I had a mind to do so. 

Q. Did you really send your vessels or come to the gulf knowing that | 
you could thus make more money than if you fished on your own coast? | 
—A. I never sent a vessel into North Bay; I let the skipper do as he © 
wished in this respect. He was his own guide, and he could go to the 
gulf if he liked, or fish on our shore, according to his preference; he 
was master of the vessel, and I fitted her out. 

Q. Is that the rule of that particular trade, to allow the master to go | 
and fish where he pleases?—A. As a general thing, yes. 

Q. Without the owner controlling him at all?—A. Well, I made it a | 
rule, at any rate, todo so. When I went for other people I went just | 
where I had a mind to. I went just where I thought I could do best. | 

Q. And the owner never attempted to control you in this regard ?— | 
A. No; if he had, I would have left his vessel. 

Q. Was your practice in this respect the usual practice of other skip- | 
. pers?—A. I presume so, but I do not know that it was; I know, how- | 
ever, that I did so myself. | 

Q. Have the skippers an interest in the vessels?—A. Most of the 
skippers of Cape Ann, for the last few years, have been part owners to | 
the extent of $ or 4, or something like that, and the owner of the vessel | | 
will think that the captain would go where the most money is to be 
made, or try to do so, and so the skippers are allowed to be the judges | | 
in this relation. | 

Q. Therefore it is to be presumed that the captains who have gone | 
to the gulf have done so because they could make more money by fish- 
ing there than by fishing on your coast ?—A. Certainly; that is the 
reason why I went to the United States—because I could do better there | 
than here. 

Q. You will admit, at all events, that coming to the bay is a conven- 
ience with respect to keeping the crews together? The gulf fishery is 
an important fishery to the Americans?—A. It was so for a number of 

| 


years, but this is not the case at the present time, from what I hav 
learned. 

Q. You do not pretend to know anything about this matter since 1868 
—A. I know the result of the fisheries from the figares in the papers, 
and I know what is going on at Cape Ann. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. . Bs 


Q. But figures sometimes do not stand investigation ?7—A. Figures, 
they say, always tell the truth; “ figures cannot lie.” 

Q. By coming to the bay you also avoided the fogs in summer on 
your coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I believe that either there is no fog at all or very little fog in the 
Bay of St. Lawrence during the summer ?—A. There is then very little 
of it. 

q. You have been there from 1837?—A. No, from 1836. 

(). Up to 1868, off and on, almost every year?—A. Yes. 

Q. And during that time you saw very little fog in the bay ?—A. No, 
not a great deal. 

Q. What was the duration of the longest fog you ever saw in the 
bay ?—A. I could not tell you. Sometimes the fog lasted for twelve 
hours, but I do not know that it continued longer than that; such is 
not to my knowledge, as far as I can recollect, but it might have been 
longer sometimes. 

Q. It was of very rare occurrence that the fog lasted longer ?—A. I 
think so. We very rarely saw a fog after we were once in the bay; up 

\ by the island and past East Point and up on Banks Orphan and Brad- 
ley, and such like, you would have very little fog. 
_ Q. Were you in the bay in 1851?7—A. Yes; I then made two trips. 

@. You must have been in the bay most of that season ?—A. Well ? 

(). You were in the bay in 1851 and 1853; do you recollect of seeing 
any fog at all there during either of these years? In 1853 you were in 

jthe Highland Lass ?—A. In 1851 [ was in the Alexander. 

Q. In 1851 you made two trips ?—A. I did not go home with my first 

itrip; I landed it with Mr. Martel, at Arichat; I had not time to go 
home, and so I landed 314 barrels there, and he advanced me the money 
to fit out. . 
_ Q. In that season you were two trips in the bay, during the whole of 
‘the summer and fall; when did you go out in the fall?—A. I think I 
left home on the 7th of July; 1 usually left home on my fishing trips on 
the 7th of July, and I think that I arrived home about the 18th or the 
20th of October. 

Q. You were in the bay during all the summer and a large portion of 

ithe fall; do you recollect any one day during this period when you saw 
a fog in the bay in 1851 ?—A. Well, [ cannot say that it was then foggy, 
bat there was a most almighty smoke. It was so smoky that you could 
hot see anything for three, four, or five days; and owing to this fact 
_ that year I got out of the mackerel, and getting behindhand, I had to 
land those mackerel and could not go home. 
| Q. Where did this‘ssmoke come from ?—A. From all round ; from fires 
| at Miramichi and on the West Shore, and up that way; the smoke was 
| so dense that you could-not see half a mile for three, four, or five days, 
all the way from North Cape over to Escuminac. 
_. Q. I suppose that no person with eyes in his head could help knowing 
the difference between that and fog?—A. Certainly; there was smoke 
| bat no fog. — 

Q. Did that smoke hurt your rigging in any way?—A. No; the only 

Way in which it hurt us was by preventing us getting any mackerel. 

‘ Q. Do you recollect having seen any fog in the bay in 18532—A. O, 
| Well, these are questions that I could not answer correctly, and I do not 
| Want to answer unless I can do so. We do not care anything at all 
about fogs, and though it might be foggy sometimes, we would not 
think anything about it, or remark it. There is nothing in a fog that 
would be thought of importance. 


2790 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You landed these mackerel at Arichat?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you afterwards take them away?—A. Yes; but not until I 
had taken to Gloucester the 214 barrels which I caught on my second 
trip. I then returned to Arichat, took these 314 barrels on board, paid 
charges, and came home. 

Q. Did not the landing of these mackerel at Arichat enable you to 
come back to the bay and take another fare?—A. Well, it enabled me to 
go back; but the heft of the vessels went home. I got out of the mack- 
erel on account of the smoke. 

Q. The right of so landing cargoes, or the exercise of this privilege, 
really does enable you to make a second and third trip, as the case may 
be?—A. I think that if such landing was not practiced it would be 
money in our pockets; if we did not so land mackerel it would be money 
in the owners’ pockets. 

Q. Does it enable you to make extra trips, or more trips than would 
otherwise be the case ?—A. Well, I should suppose that it would give 
us a little more time in the bay. 

Q. And more opportunity for catching fish eG gives us perhaps 
10 days more. I have made the passage from Canso home and back 
again, and packed my mackerel, in 10 days. 

Q. But you would not put that time forward as a specimen voyage ?— 
A. No. 

Q. How long would it take ordinarily to make this passage ?—A. 
Well, two weeks or fifteen days would give ample time to go and come 
back and pack the mackerel, and fit out. 

Q. Would not a fortnight in the height of the fishing season be a very 
important period, particularly if mackerel were then eel 7—A. 
- Mackerel might be plentiful in bad weather. 

Q. I mean during good fishing, with all the circumstances favor 
for it?—A. If all the circumstances were favorable, I could load one of 
these vessels in five days. 

Q. And those five days would then be very important ?—A. Yes; in 
five days I could fill up, if the mackerel were just as lwanted them; but 
it would be pretty hard to get them in that way. 

Q. Are not mackerel fish that move about the bay from place to 
place 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Sometimes they go inshore and sometimes they go out?—A. Dar- 
ing the first part of the year they go to the nor’ard, but after September 
they move right round and come to the southward, school after school— 
that is their track, and the man who keeps the best run of the mackerel 
gets the most of them. 

Q. Can you swear that they come southward ?—A. No; but I know 


the way in which they are caught. Say they are on Banks Orphan and 


Bradley, then the next thing they will be gone to North Cape, and next 
they will perhaps be down square off East Point ; and they will go along 
in that way. 

Q. There are no marks about mackerel by means of which they may 
be distinguished 7—A. Not a bit of it; they may be caught off North 


Cape day after day, and then sink, and afterward rise and sink again, | 


leaving no sight of them anywhere; when they come up, we may get a 


good day’s work, 75 barrels or such ‘like for perhaps two or three days ;" | 
and he who keeps the best run of their movenients, will obtain the best | 


share of the fish. 

Q. The mackerel which are caught on Banks Orphan and Br adley, and 
are afterward lost sight of, you cannot pretend to say you recognize as/ 
the same fish, in the fish which afterward rise up off North Cape and 


al 


i= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. a i | 


‘East Cape?—A. Well, I cannot identify them as the same; but that is 
the way in which we catch them, whether they are the same mackerel 
or not. ; 

Q. Can you undertake to say that there are not different schools of 
mackerel ?—A. Of course not. I cannot tell you that. 

Q. Did you ever take them early in the spring when they are very 
poor ?—A. Well, one year I went out in the Abigail for early mackerel 
iato North Bay; but that is the only yearldidso. This wasin1851. IL 
then fished on Banks Orphan and Bradley. 

Q. You did not get into the bay that year until the middle of July ?— 
A. In’ the Abigail ? 

Q. In 1851 you said you left home on the 7th of July?—A. In some 
vessels I left home on that date; but I left in that vessel in June. 

Q. I think you told me that you made two trips to the bay that year ?— 
A. I did. 

Q. And that you left home on the 7th of July 7—A. I said the 7th of 
July here, but I did not say the 7th of July yesterday. I did not say 
anything about the 7th of July, except to-day. Ileft on the 7th of July 

. in the Rose Skerritt, and in the Oliver Cromwell, and for a number of 

_ years I left Gloucester on that date. 

—  Q. When was this?—A. I went out in the Abigail in June, 1851. 

— Q. You told me previously that in 1851 you made two trips and 
started on the 7th of July ?—A. Well, then, we will rectify that; I went 
in June in the Abigail, and got my trip on Banks Orphan and Bradley; 

_ and my second trip, 75 barrels, in the bend of the island. 

_ Q. That was very early ?—A. I went very early for poor mackerel. 

 Q. That is the season when the mackerel are thin ?—A. Yes; we call 

_ them leather-bellies; they are full of spawn, and mackerel number threes 

- large, but nothing except number threes. 

- . Q. You do not catch number ones during that part of the season ?— 

_A. No. 

Q. The best mackerel are caught in the fall?—A. You ean get as 
good mackerel along in the last of August and in September as at any 
time. 

Q. Did you ever look at the eyes of those fish which you call by that 
elegant and I dare say appropriate name, to see whether there was a 
film over them ?—A. Well, a maxim is current among fishermen, that 
_) when the scale comes off their eyes they are apt to bite. 
(J. You do know of this, then ?—A. I do not know that the film exists; 
_| I have looked a number of times, but I could never perceive whether 
| the scales were off or not. 
|, Q. How long is it-since you first heard of their having scales on their 

eyes ?—A. O, since I first went to the United States. 

_Q. And as soon as these scales come off they are ready to bite ?—A., 
| That is the assertion which is made, but I do not know whether it is 
|. the case or not. oe | 

Q. Did any person ever start a theory to you, to give a reason why 
there should be scales over their eyes?—A. No; but I have heard old 
Mr. Atwood, of Provincetown, speak about it, though I cannot say 
whether he knows much about it or not. 1 never paid much attention 
to his statements. 
~@. Do you think that Mr. Attwood is a little wild in his theories ?— 
A. Ido not know. I have often heard him speak about these things; 
of course what he said might all be so, but from my experience I do not 
think it; what he said went in at one ear and came out of the other, for 
| hy part, and that is about the heft I got of it. 


— 


m= = > 


2792 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How did the idea about these scales become current among fisher- 
men ?—A. I suppose it was due to their talking the matter over. When 
mackerel do not bite very well they will ask whether the scales are off 
their eyes or not, and say that when the scales are off they will have a 
fair catch; and they are always very anxious to examine the fish to see 
whether the scales are off. 

q. Could they see whether this was the case or not?—A. I do not 
know that they could. 

Q. How do you suppose that the idea started ?—A. I could not tell 

ou. 

«. This idea is general, at any rate?—A. It was talked about among 
the fishermen. 

Q. And generally believed among fishermen ?—A. I cannot say; but 
I do not believe in it, for one. 

Q. But you are not all the fishermen ?—A. Of course not; but I do 
not believe init. Icannot speak in this regard for others. I know, how- 
ever, that it was the general talk among fishermen, and I have seen a 
great many examine the fish to see whether the scales were off; they 
wait for this patiently, hoping to get a good deck of mackerel when the 

scales come off. 

Q. How many barrels of flour would you put on board of the fishing 
vessel with 16 men, leaving Gloucester ?—A. Eleven or twelve. 

Q. What kind of flour would this be?—A. It would generally be the 
best. 

Q. What would it cost?—A. From $9 to $10 a barrel. 

Q. That was during the war?—A. And before the war. 

Q. You do not mean to say that this was the case before the war 7— 
A. It was sometimes $8 a barrel. The price varied. 

Q. Do you not know that the price was nearer $5 than $8 7?—A. The 
price might have been $5 here, but this was not the case up with us. 
The price bas never been $5 a barrel since I have been in the States. 

Q. Or $6 or $7 ?—A. I have paid $7, $8, and $9 a barrel for it, and 
so on; we do not buy poor trash, but the best flour. The best flour makes 
the best bread, and is the cheapest in the end. 

@. How much does coal cost?—A. We did not use to take coal with 
us at all; but of late years it has been taken. 

Q. What kind of coal is generally taken ?—A. Hard coal. 

Q. What do you pay for it?—A. The price varies from $7 to $8 a ton. 

Q. That must surely have been the price in American currency, when | 
greenbacks were at a considerable discount ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Because the hard coal used in these provinces comes from the 
States ?—A. Certainly; we burn it mostly. I never took it with me but | 
one or two years, and that was when I was in the Scotland. 

Q. If we can get such coal here at $5 a ton, how is it that the prices 
of it in the States is $6 or $72?—A. It comes to us from Philadelphia in | 
freighters, and we pay $5, $6, and $7 a ton for it. 

Q. Can it be possible that you pay more for this coal in your own 
country than we do here ?—A. Yes; this coal is worth $6 a ton to-day 
in the United States. I have paid $6 and $6.50, and $6.25 is the priee | 
on which I have agreed for this winter’s supply. 

Q. How many tons of coal would you take on a vessel ?—A. No more ‘ ‘ 
than five, at any rate. e |} 
Q. Where have you obtained your wood ?—A. Generally at Canso 5 7 

we always made a point of doing so. 

Q. Because it is cheap at Canso ?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2793 


Q. What is it a cord there?—A. $3 for about seven feet; they call 
that a cord down there. 

Q. During your experience in the bay, what was the highest price 
you paid for a cord of wood ?—A, $3 to my knowledge. 

Q. Did you ever fish very much within the limits in the bay, after the 
repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty, in 1866?—A. I have tried inshore, but I 
never found that I could do anything there. I invariably did better off 
shore. 

Q. Was this because you had to watch the cutters?—A. No; I did 
not have to watch them when we had reciprocity. 

Q. I am speaking of the time when this treaty was abrogated; from 
1866 to 1868, did you fish a great deal inshore without licenses?—A. 
No, I did not. I did not fish inshore while I was in the Scotland at all. 
I got the heft of my mackerel around the Magdalen Islands. 

@. Do you mean to say that you never fished inshore at all 7—A, I 
have tried inshore, but I never got mackerel there of any account. 

Q. These three years followed the’close of the American war?—-A. 
Yes. 

Q. And then you were not obliged to be armed to the teeth as be- 
fore?—A. No. 

@. Did any cutters ever seize or try to seize you?—A. In those 
years? 

Q. Yes.—A. No. 

Q. But previously 7—A. Yes. 

Q. When ?—A. In 1851. 

Q. Where were you seized in 1851?—A. I was not seized. I never 
was seized. 

Q. Was any attempt made to seize you?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you then fishing ?—A. It was at the last of my trip 


when I got those 214 barrels. 


Q. Where were you fishing ?—A. Wide off Margaree—between that 
and Cheticamp. , 

Q. Which cutter attempted to seize yoao?—A. A man named Cutler, 
from Guysborough, was there in a little pinkey; he was a spy, and he 
used to make compromises when vessels got a good deck of mackerel 
anywhere and were dressing them inshore. He would take 20 or 10 
barrels, making as good a bargain as he could. This Cutler was in this 
pinkey, and I was at anchor under Margaree Island at the time. 

4 2. Were you lying close inshore?—A. I was at anchor and not 
shing. 

Q. Lying close inshore?—A. Yes, right close in under Margaree for 
shelter. He did not attempt to take me; if he had I would have given 
him a clout, but he took another vessel, the Harp, Captain Andrews. 
I kept a watch all night, but they did not come alongside; if they had, 
we would have given them grape-shot, I bet. 

Q. Had you grape-shot on board?—A. We had a gun loaded with 
Slugs, or something of that sort. 

Q. In. fact, then, you were never boarded by a customs or seizing 
officer ?—A. I was boarded by an officer who came for light-money, at 
Little Canso, that same year. : 

_Q. Did you pay the light-money 7— A. No. 


«Q. Why ?—A. Because this man was not authorized to receive it. 


Q. What did you do?—A. I hove him into his boat, of course, and 


- got rid of him. 
_ Q. You knew that the light-money was due?—A. Certainly; and I 
_ Was willing to pay it, had the right man come for it. 


2794 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Did he represent himself to be a custom-house officer ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ask him for his authority ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And did he show it?—A. No. 

Q. And then you threw him overboard ?—A. I told him he had to 
leave, and seeing he would not go, I seized him by the naps of the neck 
and the breeches and put him into his boat. He was bound to take me 
because I had landed a poor girl. 

Q. Was this girl contraband 7?—A. Yes, I suppose they called her so 
at any rate. I do not know tbat she is now in town, but she became 
lawyer Blanchard’s wife afterward. I merely took her on board as a 
passenger, and landed her. Afterward I was fired at and chased by 
three cutters. 

Q. For putting this officer overboard 7?—A. No, I did not put him 
overboard, but I put him into his boat. 

Q. In lawyer’s phrase, did you gently lay hands on him?—A. I put 
him in his boat in the shortest way. He stripped off and said it would 
take a man to handle him, but I made up my mind that he should not 
stop, though I did not want to fight; still, I was well able to take my 
own part. Italked with him and told him that I had merely landed a 
poor girl with her effects, a trunk and a bandbox, &ec.; but this would 
not do him. When he came aboard he asked, ** Whois master of this 
vessel?” Says I, ‘I am for lack of a better.” Says he, “ I seize this 
vessel,” and with red chalk he put the King’s broad R on the mainmast. 
He wanted the jib hauled down in order to have the boat taken on 
board—we had not come to an anchor—but I told him that he would 
have to wait a while. Finally he came down below and I took the pa- 
pers out of a canister; and being a little excited, of course, in hauling 

off the cover a receipt for light-dues, which I had paid that year, 
dropped on the forecastle floor. He picked it up and said he would give 
me a receipt on the back of it. Says I, “* Whoare you?” Heanswered 
“Tam Mr. Bigelow, the light- collector. » « Well,” says I, ‘¢‘ where are 
your documents?” Says he, ‘‘I have left them ashore. Me “Then, ” says I, 
*¢ go ashore, you vagabond, you haveno business here.” Says he, e Won't 
you pay me?” “Not ared cent,” says I; ‘out with you.” He cried out, 
‘Put thehelm down.” Says I, ‘Put the helm up”; but he came pretty 
near shoving us ashore, as we were within 10 fathoms of the rocks. 
Says he, ** Who are you ?” I said, ‘‘ I am Mr. Pattillo.” Says he, “* You 
vagabond, I know the Pattillos.”. ‘“ Well,” says I, “then you must 
know me, for there are only two of us.” Says he, “I will take you any- 
how; I will have a cutter from Big Canso. There will be a man-of-war 
there; and if there is not a man-of-war, there will be a cutter; and if 
there is not a cutter I will raise the militia, for Iam bound to take you.” 
I asked him if he meant to do all that, and he said he was just the man 
to doit. I seized him to put him back into his boat, and he stripped off 
and told me that it took a man to handle him; with that I made a lunge 
at him, and jumped 10 feet. If he had not avoided me, I would have 
taken the head off his body. I then seized him and chucked him into 
his boat. Then three cutters came down and chased me. 

. But they did not catch you?—A. No; that was the time when they 
chased me at Port Hood and around there, ‘and fired 11 balls—12- pound- 
ers—at me, one boring her right through and through. The first shot 
flew about 6 feet over my head, through the mainsail ; the next went 
right under the bends, through a plank, cut the timber, and went through 


@ sail and into the main- boom ; the next struck on the port side, taking | 


a piece of about 5 or 6 inches out of the bulwarks, and striking the main 


chains; the next knocked a piece off the forward part of the main-mast, __ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2795 


about 4 inches above the saddle of the main-boom ; and the next struck 
in the windlass-bit; five shots struck us, and we were chased between 6 
and 7 miles. 

Q. When did you go to Newfoundland for bait?—A. I was there, in 
Fortune Bay, in the Tiger. I was on the first vessel that ever got her- 
rings there. . 

Q. Did you get the fish right inshore?—A. Yes, we got them through 
the ice; I was frozen in. 

Q. When was this?—A. I left Cape Cod on this trip in 1838, and I 
arrived home again in 1839. 

Q. Did you stay during the winter at Fortune Bay 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You got a cargo through the ice?—A. Yes, up at the head of the 
bay. 

Q. Inshore ?—A. Yes, right inshore. An army of 30 men, all armed 
to the teeth, came there to take us—five men and a black boy; but I 
drove the whole calabash of them off. 

Q. You succeeded in securing a cargo, and in getting safe home 7— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Did you sell any of your cargo before you left ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you lose your papers?—A. Yes; they were taken from me. I 
handed them to the man who came to see about it, when I went on the 
ice. He said his name was Gadin, and that he came from Harbor Briton, 
on my asking who he was; I then asked to see his documents, and he 
handed them to me. I then knew what I had to do, and I gave him my 
papers; but I was too honest; I ought to have kept possession of his 
documents until he had handed me back my papers, but did not do so. 
Finally, I requested him to give me my papers, but he went off with his 
army. 

_Q. You staid all winter there ?—A. We stopped there as long as we 
could, and took herring out of theice. We got out of the ice on the 17th 
of April and reached home on the 14th of May. : 


No. 68. 


Prof. SPENCER F. BAIRD, assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Insti- 
tution, Washington, and United States Commissioner of Fish and Fish- 
eries, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn, 
and examined. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. It is not necessary, of course, to ask this witness any ques- 
tions to show his position or general acquaintance with and knowledge 
of the subject. I would like, however, to have you state, if you please, 
as I am going to give, by and by, some of the results of your inquiries— 
I would like to have you state particularly how you have obtained, and 
from what sources you have obtained, information respecting the fisheries 
of late, besides what you have studied in books.—Answer. I have been 
in the habit for five years past of spending from two to three months 
on the sea-coast, for the purpose of prosecuting inquiries into the con- 
dition of the fisheries, to determine whether, as alleged, the American 
coast fisheries have been decreasing, and to ascertain what steps, if any, 


Might be adopted to remedy the difficulty, if found. I have, in pursu- 


ance of that work, established stations in successive years at Eastport 


_ Portland, Salem, Woods Holl, on the south coast of New England, and 
at Noank. And I have had with me a force of experts, naturalists, and 
‘gentlemen interested in the biology of fishes, and have endeavored to 


. ao 4 : 
P OSs. 
. ~~. 


2796 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


gather such information as I could, from my own personal observation, 
and that of my colleagues, as well as by inquiries from fishermen and 
others whom I have met. 

Q. How far have you prosecuted that personal inquiry of the fisher- 
men and persons engaged in the fisheries?—A. I have, by the help of a 
phonographic secretary, taken the testimony of many hundreds of fish- 
ermen along the coast in reference principally to questions in the natural 
history of fishes. The facts as to the statistics of the fisheries have 
come out incidentally, and were not the original object of my inquiry. 
I was interested more in determining what kinds of fish we had, what 
natural, physical, or moral causes influenced them, and what would prob- 


ably be the result of these causes, and how any evil influences could be - 


remedied. 

Q. Then have you employed fishermen to examine and make in- 
quiries ?—A. I have had in my employ several men, some for the whole 
year, or several years in succession, and others for a part of the year, 
who have taken a series of printed questions that I prepared in regard 
to the natural bistory of fishes and pursued these inquiries in regions 
where I myself could not go conveniently, especially in the winter Season 
or in the early spring. 

.  Q. Then you issued some printed circulars?—A. Yes; a great many 

thousand blanks, inviting responses, and I have had a reasonable per- 
centage of returns, of which I consider a fair percentage more or less 
reliable. But, as a general rule, as everybody knows, fishermen know 
less about fish than they do about anything else. That is to say, they 
know how to catch fish and the practical details of their business, but 
of their natural history they know very little. About such questions as 
the time of their migration, the rate of their growth, their spawning 
seasons, and other matters, only here and there will you find a man who 
has observed and noted the facts closely enough to be able to answer 
your questions. 

Q. You employed some such persons ?—A. I have one man especially, 
a skilled fisherman, resident on the south coast of New England, and 
whom I employ to visit the different fishing stations and gather sta- 
tistics. 

Q. Have you any of those circulars about you?—A. I have one. (Cir- 
arate produced. ) 

Q. (Reading circular.) There are something like nearly ninety dif- 
ferent questions. Under one head you require the man’s name, &c. 
Then as to the distribution of fishes: what kind of fish he has in his 
neighborhood, their abundance, migrations, movements, food, relation- 
ships, reproduction, artificial culture, diseases, pursuits, capture, their 
economical value, application, &c.—A. That circular was issued in 1871. 
I have issued a great many editions of it. Then I have another circular 
which refers more particularly to the coast and river fisheries. I have 
only issued this within the present year. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Was that about the time, Professor?—A. Yes; the first thing 
I did was to distribute these questions in order to get as much in- 
formation as I could. I have some eight or ten special circulars, but 
these are the ones I have most used. I have issued special circulars for 
the oe and mackerel and menhaden, but of these I have not copies 
with me. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Here (referring to circular spoken of as issued mice the present: 


——-— 


, | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2797 


year) you have the home fisheries, the river fisheries; they don’t come 
directly under our cognizance.—A. These are the coast and river fish- 
eries particularly. 

Q. Not the deep sea?—A. Only incidentally. They are sea coast fish, 
but not outside. There is a schedule of the principal fish qnarketed in 
the Boston market. My object was to get the number of pounds of 
these fish taken in the vicinity of the person to whom the circular was 

iven. 
f Q. You think these have been pretty fully answered ?—A. I have a 
great many answers. 

q. And from your information, which you gather as you go about, 
from what is sent to you by the return of these circulars, and from the 
persons employed by you, it has been your business to make yourself 
fully acquainted with the subject ?—A. Yes; I have, of course, used 
what published materiai I have found. I found a great deal of value in 
the reports of the Canadian fisheries. What little I know of the fish- 
eries in Canada I have learned from these documents. 

Q. Wherever there are documents published by the United States 
you have them ?—A. Yes; I have them; and I have European docu- 
ments, English, and Norwegian, &c. I believe I have everything. 

Q. I will question you first about codfish. I want you to state what 
is your opinion about the cod as a fish for all sorts of commercial pur- 
poses, as compared with others.—A. I think the cod stands at the head 
of fish at the present day. There is no fish that furnishes food to so- 
many people, the production of which is of so much importance, or 
which is applied to such a variety of purposes. The commercial yield 
is very great, and its capture is the main occupation of a large portion 
of the inhabitants of the sea-coast region of the Northern Hemisphere. 

Q. Besides as an article of food, either fresh or salted, what other 
purposes does it serve ?—A. Well, it is applied toa great many pur- 
poses by different nations. It is used, of course, as food in the different 
modes of preparation. Particular parts are used as food, other than the: 
muscles. The sounds are used as food, converted into gelatine, and in 
‘the form of isinglass. They serve a great variety of purposes. The 
roes are used as food and bait for fish. The skin is tanned for leather 
and clothing. A great many nations dress very largely in the skins of 
cod and salmon. And the fish is dried and used as food for cattle in 
Ieeland and Norway. The bones are used as fuel in some places; and,. 
of course, the oil is used for medicine, and for the various purposes to 
which animal oils are applied. There is scarcely any part that is not 
valuable. The offal, in Norway, is converted into a valuable manure. 
Every part is called into play. 

Q.-The bones ?—A. They are burned as fuel, as well as eaten by dogs, 
or converted into fertilizers. 

Q. It is not, probably, applied in the United States to all the uses you 
have specified?—A. No; I don’t think the skin is used as clothing in 
the United States, but it makes an admirable leather for shoes, and makes 
very nice slippers. We have in Washington quite a large namber of 
articles made from the skins, as used in Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, 
and in Siberia. ; 

_ Q. You think they can be used ?—A. I have no doubt in the course of 
years the skin will be utilized very largely. In fact, I may remark, that 
at the late exhibition at the Westminster Aquarium, among the special. 
articles exhibited were shoes made from leather of the codfish, furnished 
_ by an exhibitor from Christiania. 

-Q. You think it is the foremost fish ?—A. I think it is. There is none- 


2798 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


that furnishes so important an industry or which is so abundantly or 
widely disseminated. : 

Q. What is the geographical distribution of the cod?—A. There are 
quite a number of species of the cod, some characterized by certain 
peculiarities and some by others. The cod in the North Pacific is differ- 
ent from that in the North Atlantic. Both are, however, codfish, and 
no one could mistake them for anything else but cod. In the Atlantic 
the cod are found on the American side from the Winter Quarter Shoals, 
on the coast of Virginia; that is the most southern point I have traced 
it to; from that indefinitely to the northward. It is found everywhere 
upon the coast, in the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of St. Lawrence, the 
Labrador and Newfoundland, on the Grand Bank, and many other 
places. The European species, although by some considered distinct 
from ours, probably have a geographical range equally extensive. I be- 
lieve they are uot in Spitzbergen. 

Q. What is the most important locality ?—A. Probably the most im- 
portant single locality that furnishes the greatest amount of fish with the 
least possible labor in the shortest possible time is that in the vicinity 
of the Lofoden Islands, on the northwest coast of Norway. That isa 
region where usually twenty-five millions of fish are taken in three 
months by some twenty-five thousand men. The Dogger Bank, in the 
North Sea, is another European locality. In America the most exten- 
sive stores of cod are found, I suppose, on the Grand Banks and the 
Georges. They are found, perbaps, also on the great banks off the coast 
ot Labrador, twenty or thirty miles off the coast, extending for hundreds 
of miles. 

Q. Now give the Commission some notion of the abundance of cod- 
fish. A. Well, 1 have covered that point in my reply to the previous 
question. It is found in the greater part of those regions at some por- 
tion of the year. It is usually more abundant in the spring or summer, 
autumn or winter, in each locality, in numbers only to be measured by 
the ability of man to capture. : 

Q. What do you say of their migrations ?—A. The cod is a fish the 
migrations of which cannot be followed readily, because it is a deep-sea 
fish and does not show on the surface as the mackerel and herring; but 
so far as we can ascertain, there is a partial migration, at least some of 
the fish don’t seem to remain in the same localities the year round. 
They change their situation in search of food, or in consequence of the 
variations in the temperature, the percentage of salt in the water, or 
some other cause. In the south of New England, south of Cape Cod, 
the fishing is largely off shore. That is to say, the fish are off the coast 


in the cooler water in the summer, and as the temperature falls ap- | 


proaching autumn, and the shores are cooled down to a certain degree, 
they come in and are taken within a few miles of the coast. In the 
northern waters, as far as I can understand from the writings of Prof. 
Hind, the fish generally go off shore in the winter-time, excepting on 


the south side of Newfoundland, where, I am informed, they maintain — 


their stay, or else come in in large abundance; but in the Bay of Fundy, 
on the coast of Maine, and still further north, they don’t remain as close 
to the shore in winter as in other seasons. 


Q. Take them as a whole, then, they are a deep-sea fish. I don’t , 
mean the deep sea as distinguished from the Banks ?—A. An outside © 
fish ? Well, they are to a very considerable extent. The largest catches — 
are taken off shure, and what are taken inshore are in specially favored | 
localities, perhaps on the coast of Labrador, and possibly off Newfound- — 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2799 


land. They bear a small proportion generally to what is taken outside, 
where the conveniences of attack and approach are greater. 

Q. Now, what is known about the spawning-grounds of codfish 7—A. 
We lack positive information in regard to the spawning-grounds of this 
fish, except that we know single localities. We know the Lofodon Isl- 
ands are great spawning-grounds. We know that the fis come there 
almost exclusively for the purpose of spawning. They are not there in. 
the ordinary times of the year. They come in December and January, 
and spawn in February and March, and are there in most overwhelm- 
ing abundance. : 

Q. But on the coast of America?—A. We know there is one large 
spawning-ground in Cape Cod Bay. 

Q. You mean Massachusetts Bay inside?—A. Yes; there is said to 
be there a long reef about 4 miles wide and about 20 miles long, and 
the cod go in there and furnish a very important winter fishery. 

Q. Then, I presume, there are similar spots along the whole A meri- 
can coast ?—A. Probably they spawn-at tbe Georges, and undoubtedly 
in a great many localities in the Bay of St. Lawrence and on the Banks, 
although 1 cannot speak of that, because [ haven’t had an opportunity 
of knowing. 

Q. What are the relations of cod to other fish ?—A. They are friends 
and enemies. They are warriors and victims. They are extremely 
voracious, and devour everything that is small enough, without any 
kind of consideration, and in turn are consumed in all their stages by 
such fish as can master them. The adult fish are principally interfeted 
with by horse-mackerel, the bluefish, the porpoise, and by sharks, and 
anything else big enough to swallow them, instead of being swallowed 
by them. It is merely a question of size whether the codfish is the 
active or passive agent. 

Q. Now, what fish do they devour mostly 7—A. They eat everything, 
but they live very largely on herring or mackerel, or any of the small 
fish found on the sea bottoms. They devour crabs and small lobsters. 
The stomach of the cod is one of the best dredges you can have. You 
find there sometimes rare specimens that are never found elsewhere. 

Q. Do they digest the shells ?—A. No, they digest the nutriment and 
then throw out the shells. Sometimes you find the shells packed solid 

' One inside of another like saucers in a pile. The wonder is how they 
empty them out. 

Q. But they do ?—A. I suppose they must. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. They devour them whole and then when the meat is digested they 
eject the shells?—A. The mouth is quite large, and the shell goes out 
as easily as it goes in. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. What do you think are the seasons for spawning on the American 
- eoast?—A. I presume that, like many other fish, they may spawn over 
| qnite a range of time. But, so far as our own observation on the 
American coast goes, their season is from November until March. In 
Cape Cod Bay they spawn about December and January.‘ I have no 
| doubt, however, that farther north, where the changes of temperature 
are not so abrupt, they may spawn more irregularly, and have only an 

interval of a few months when there is no spawning. ’ 
Q. Will you describe this spawn so as to show the prolific nature of 
the fish ?—A. The cod is one of the brag fish in regard to spawning. 
| That is, we hear of ordinary multiplication of fish by that process, but 


. = 


2800 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the cod has been found to contain from three to seven million eggs by 
actual count. Turbot, I think, are one of the very few fish that can 
beat it. They run up to twelve millions. 

Q. We do not have the real turbot ?—A. No. From three to five mil- 
lion might be considered a fair annual estimate of the eggs of the cod- 
fish. From three to five millions of ripe eggs have been. found in the 
-ovary of one single cod, and more. 

Q. What becomes of these eggs when discharged 7—A. The question 
of the spawning places for codfish has been one that was originally very 
~ uneertain. The researches of naturalists have shown that these eggs 
are discharged in the open sea.on the Lofoden Banks. Some miles from 
the shore they can be found floating at the surface, and can be taken 
up by the bushel in towing nets. The eggs are very small, from one- 
twentieth to one-fiftieth of an inch in diameter, and they have a small 
globule of oil to make them float. 

Q. Now, do these eggs all produce fish unless they are injured in some 
way ?—No; there area great many contingencies. Itis not likely thata 
very large percentage will be fertilized by the male. Thereis always an 
uncertainty about that. Then, as they are floating in the water, every 
fish that may be fond of that kind of sustenance devours them very 
greedily, and by the time they are hatched out, a large percentage is 
destroyed in this way. Then, the young fry, while in a helpless state, 
are devoured in large numbers. I should think it extremely probable 
that not one hundred thousand out of the three millions—possibly not 
ten thousand—attain to a condition in which they are able to take care 
of themselves. It is entirely impossible to make any estimate. We 
know, however, from the analogy of other fish—from the facts in regard 
to salmon, shad, and that kind of fish we can make an approximation. 

Q. These eggs rise to the surface 7—A. They float at various distances 
from the surface down. Some are a little heavier and some a little 
‘lighter. I mean that they are not attached to the bottom. Their 
specific gravity is very nearly that of the water. Of course when the 
water is cold they will float better, because the density is greater, bub 
when the water is warm they will sink. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Before you leave this subject I would like to ask whether the 
spawn are visible in the ocean, that is, cod-spawn. What is the eolor?— 


A. It is transparent, with a little spot of oil in one corner. You would | 


not notice it under ordinary circumstances, but you might if you were 
looking for it. 


ae 


Q. The ocean might be full aud a common man would not see it?—A. 


Certainly. 
By Mr. Dana: 
Q. Be kind enough now to tell us what are the principal modes of 


capturing cod ?—A. The modes of capture vary with the regions. For | 


commercial purposes, the fish are caught with hand-lines and the trawl- 
line, or long line as it should be called. It is taken very largely in gill- 
nets on the coast of Norway and in some other regions. I believe it is 
so taken on the coast of Labrador, but I don’t think it is taken fre- 


quently on our own coast in nets. | 


Q. To what extent is the trawl-line used ?—A. It is used all over the | 


world. Itis one of the oldest methods of catching fish. 
Q. From your investigation, do you think the capture of fish gen- | 
erally, or codfish, or other kinds, by some contrivance like the trawl, | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2801 


is as ancient as any other 7—A. Iknowitis. The Indians, the Aleutian 
Islanders, have used them. 

Q. That was not derived from us?—A. No. Travelers have found 
them in use when the first white men came among them. We have 
specimens in great number of the trawl of the native savage. Ours 
have only been brought in within the last fiveor six years. I don’t 
think it is possible to fix the date of the first use of the trawl. They 
have been traced back to such a period that there is no possibility of 
saying that it was introduced by this man or known to that one. 

Q. What are the advantages of the method of trawl-fishing for cod ?— 
A. The alleged advantages, as far as I have heard them spoken of, are 
the larger yield of the fishery. The same number of men in the same 
time, and in the same locality, will catch a larger fare of fish with the 
trawl than with hand lines. Then they require less exposure of the fish- 
ermen. They can be set over night and left down through the day at 
times when the weather would be too inclement for hand-line fishing. 
Then it requires much less skillful fishermen to use the trawl than the 
hand lines. It is merely a matter of putting on the bait and throwing 
it overboard, and it does not require the delicate manipulation and skill 
that the band-line fishing does, and therefore does not call into play to 
the same extent the functions of the practiced fisherman. 

Q. Now, are there any disadvantages connected with the use of thetrawl 
alleged or actual ?—-A. There are a great many accusations brought, 

- against it. How far these are valid it is impossible for me to say. The 
principal objection I suppose is that it tempts all kinds of fish. One db- 
_ jection is that it takes fish that are too small size. They use a smaller 
hook than the ordinary hand lines, and they say it takes a great many 
unmarketable fish, which affects the supply.. Then another complaint 
is that the fish being longer in the water are liable to be destroyed by 
| the depredations of sharks, dogfish, and fish of that class. Another 
' objection is that after the fish are caught the marketable fish, owing to - 
their weight, slip off from the small hook and float away and are lost. 
Another objection is that they catch what they call mother fish, that is 
| the parent fish, which some fishermen think should be left to reproduce 
| their kind. 

Q. If they are taken after depositing their spawn you only lose one 

| fish?—A. Yes; but it is probable, judging from the testimony of fisher- 
' men, that the fish can be taken during their spawning season with a 
| trawl when they will not bite a hook. As a general thing very few will 

| bite on the ordinary line, but the trawl bait is said to be attractive 
to them, and the fish are. believed to be more likely to take the bait at 
that time from a trawl than from a hook on an ordinary line. 

| Q. Well, taking the reasons given both ways, what conclusion have 

'| you come to about the use of the trawl for cod-fishing ?—A. Well, it is 

just one of the wholesale modes of capture, which it is difficult to avoid, 
because the tendency is to centralize, to accomplish the same work by 
_ less expenditure of money and of human force. 

_  Q. Do you think it is a case for prohibition or regulation ?—A. I don’t 
see how it can be either prohibited or regulated. I hardly see. Of 
course I have had no practical experience. I may say that-the trawl is 
used very much less on the coast of America than on the coast of Eng- 

‘ land and of Europe generally, and I have failed to find anywhere in the 
English writers or in the testimony of the British Fishery Commission 
any complaint there such as occurs in America. There is a great com- 
plaint there against what is called the beam-trawl. When they speak of 
the trawl they don’t mean what we mean. What they refer to is a trawl 


176 F 


| 
} 
| 


| 


2802 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


such as we use in our steamer to capture flounders and such fish. 
Wherever you see the word trawl used by an English or European 
writer you must apply it to that large net that is dragged behind the 
vessel along the bottom of the sea. The word trawl is never applied in 
Europe to the line, and, therefore, there is a great deal of vagueness and 
error involved in the consideration of the subject unless you know what 
the particular speaker or witness means by a trawl. But speaking 
of the long line, which is the general term, or bultow, I have failed to 
find in the reports of the British Fishery Commission any complaint by 
anybody except three cases of complaint against the trawl-line or long 
line. One was that it destroyed the young fish, and the others were that 
they interfered with the nets. They complained that the trammel net 
especially, which is a particular kind.used in England, was fouled by 
these lines and injured. 

Q. On the other hand, the net was in the way of the trawl 7—A. No; 
the trawl was in the way of the nets. The trawlers didn’t care about 
the net, but the net fishermen did complain of the trawl. But I have 
looked carefully to find whether there was any complaint against that 
line, and I haven’t found it. There may be, but Iam quite confident 
it has not assumed anything like the antagonistic features and impres- 
sion of magnitude that it has in the United States and Ameriea gen- 
erally. 

Q. We mean by the trawl a long line weighted or anchored which 
sinks to the bottom and has—— A. It has branches three feet long. 
That is called a long line or bultow. 

Q. Then at intervals there are buoys ?—A. Yes. 

Q. To show thé position. They are usually in a straight line ?—A. In 
Europe there are generally several shorter lines united in one long line, 
so much so that on the coast of Great Britain they have a line of trawls 
six or eight miles in length. In America the trawling on the Banks is 

generally by means of five shorter lines radiating from the vessel, but 
in England the trawling is done generally on a large scale, without row- 
boats, directly from a vessel of forty or sixty tons, and the entire series 
of lines is united in one and sunk. 

Q. They are hauled in from aboard the vessel, and not from a boat 
at all?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, what do they call that which we call a trawl, if it is used at * 
all ?—A. They call it a long line or bultow. 

Q. What bait do you find to be the best for codfish ?—A. Well, I 
can’t say I find any bait to be the best, because I never caught many 
fish, but I know that everything of an animal nature, and to some ex- 
tent vegetable, has been used for the cod. Generally, in America, our 
bait consists of herring, menhaden, mackerel, a portion of the offal of 
the fish, sea-birds of various kinds, clams, squid, and the various species 
of shells, and in fact anything that can be got hold of. 

Q. Well, now, what are the methods of preservation of this bait? We 
have heard of their using salt clams, &c. Has much attention been © 
paid to the possibility of greater preservation of the bait than we have 
ever yet had 7—A. Yes; the science of preserving bait, as well as of the 
preservation of fish on sbipboard, is very low indeed, far below what 
can be applied, and I have no doubt will be applied, both in keeping fish , 
for food and in keeping it for bait. : | 

Q. Now, will you state what observation you have made respecting — 
the method of preserving fresh bait from the start all the voyage — 
through ?—A. Asa general rule it is now preserved, either by salting © 
or freezing. Of course they keep it as long as it will remain without — 


ee 


. 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2803. 


spoiling, and when you have to carry it beyond that time, either ice it 
or salt it. Salting, of course, is a very simple process, but it alters ma- 
terially the texture and taste to such a degree that fish or other bait that 
under certain circumstances is highly prized by the fish, is looked upon 
with a great deal of indifference when salted. Now, there are special 
methods of preserving the fish or bait by some chemical preparation, 
which preserves the fish without giving the saline taste. There are pre- 
parations by means of which oysters or clams or fish can be kept in so- 
lutions for six months without getting any appreciable taste, and with- 
out involving the slightest degree of deterioration or destruction. One 
process submitted to the group of judges of whom I was chairman, was 
exhibited by an experimenter who placed a great jar of oysters in our 
room prepared in that way. I think about the 1st of August those were 
placed in our room and they were kept there until the middle of Sep- 
_ tember, for six weeks during the hottest portion of the centennial sun- 
mer, and that was hot enough. At the end of that time we mustered 
up courage to pass judgment upon this preparation, and we tasted these 
oysters and could not find them affected. We would have preferred ab- 
, solutely fresh oysters, but there was nothing repugnant to the sensibili- 
ties, and I believe we consumed the entire jar. And we gave the ex- 
' hibitor, without any question, an award for an admirable new method. 
| That man is now using that process on a very large scale in New York for 
| the preservation of fish of all kinds, and he claims he can keep them any 
length of time and allow them to be used as fresh fish quite easily. ‘ I 
/ don’t suppose any fisherman ever thought of using any preservative 
| except salt. 
Q. That is entirely experimental 7—A. It is experimental, but it prom- 
\ ises very well. Now, borax is one of the substances that will preserve 
) animal matter a great deal better than salt and without changing the tex- 
_ture. Acetic acid is another preparation, or citric acid will keep fish a 
long time without any change of the quality, and by soaking it in fresh 
) water for a little while the slightly acidulated taste will be removed. I 
' don’t believe a cod will know the difference between a clam preserved 
/in that way and a fresh clam. ii 
_ Q. Now, about ice. We know a good deal has been done in the way 
, of preserving bait in ice. How far has that got?—A. It isa very crude 
_and clumsy contrivance. They generally break up the ice into pieces 
|| about the size of pebble stones, or larger; then simply stratify the bait 
_\or fish with this ice, layer and layer about, until you fill up a certain 
‘depth or distance. The result is that if the bait can be kept two weeks 
‘in that method it is doing very well. They generally get a period of 
| preservability of twoweeks. The ice is continually melting and contin- 
ually saturating the bait or fish with water, and a very slow process of 
‘decomposition or disorganization goes on until the fish becomes musty, 
flabby, and tasteless, unfit for the food of man or beast. 
| _Q, Well, there is a newer method of preservation, is there not ?—A. 
| ‘There is a better method than using ice. The method described by the 
|| Noank witness, by using what is equivalent to snow, allows the water to 
_ run off or to be sucked up as by a sponge. The mass being porous pre- 
vents the fish from becoming musty. But the coming methods of pre- 
‘serving bait.are what are called the dry air process and the hard freezing 
process. In the dry air process you have your ice in large solid cakes 
in the upper part of the refrigerator and your substance to be preserved 
inthe bottom. By a particular mode of adjusting the connection be- 
_ tween the upper chamber and the lower there is a constant circulation 
_ of air by means of which all the moisture of the air is continually being 


> 
= 


2804 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


condensed on the ice, leaving that which envelops the bait or fish per- 
fectly dry. Fish or any other animal substance will keep almost indefi- 
nitely in perfectly dry air about 40° or 45°, which can be attained very 
readily by means of this dry air apparatus. I had an instance of that in 
the case of a refrigerator filled with peaches, grapes, salmon, a leg of 
mutton, and some beefsteaks, with a great variety of other, substances. 
At the end of four months in midsummer, in the Agricultural Building, 
these were in a perfectly sound and prepossessing condition. No one 
would have hesitated one moment to eat the beefsteaks, and one might 
be very glad of the chance at times to have it cooked. This refrigera- 
tor has been used between San Francisco and New York, and between 
Chicago and New York, where the trip has oecupied a week or ten days, 
and they are now used on a very large scale, tons upon tons of grapes 
and pears being sent from San Francisco by this means. I had a cargo 
of fish-eggs brought from California to Chicago in a perfect condition. 
Another method is the hard frozen process. You use a freezing mixture 
of salt and ice powdered fine, this mixture producing a temperature of 
twenty degrees above zero, which cau be kept up just as long as the 
occasion requires by keeping up the supply of ice and salt. 

Q. How big is the refrigerator ?—A. There is no limit to the size that 
may be used. They are made of enormous size for the purpose of pre- 
serving salmon, and in New York they keep all kinds of fish. I have 
been in and seen a cord of codfish, a cord of salmon, a cord of Span- 
ish mackerel, and other fish piled up just like cord-wood, dry, hard, and 
firm, and retaining its qualities for an indefinite time. 

Q. Well, can fish or animals be kept for an unlimited period if frozen 
in that way ?—A. You may keep fish or animals hard dried frozen for 
a thousand years or ten thousand years perfectly well, and be assured 
there will be no change. 

Q. Have geologists or paleontologists satisfied themselves of that by 
actual cases of the preservation of animal substances for a long period ?— 
A. Yes; we have perfectly satisfactory evidence of that. About fifty 
years ago the carcass of a mammoth, frozen, was washed out from the 
gravel of the river Lena, I think, one of the rivers of Siberia, and was 
in such perfect preservation that the flesh was served as food for the 
dogs of the natives for over six months. Mr. Adams, a St. Petersburg 
merchant, came along on a trading expedition, and found it nearly con- | 
sumed, and bought what was left of it for the St. Petersburg Academy 


of Science—the skeleton and some portion of flesh—which were pre- — 


served first in salt and afterward in alcohol. Well, we know the period 
of time that must have elapsed since the mammoth lived in the areti¢ 
circle must be very long. We know we can talk with perfect safety of 
ten thousand years. The geological estimate of it is anywhere from 
fifty to a hundred thousand years; we cannot tell. There is no unit of 
measure; we know it must have been some hundreds of thousands, and | 
probably it would have remained in the same condition as much longer. 
Q. Now, to come toa practical question, is this a mere matter of 
theory or of possible use? For instance, could this method be adapted 
to the preservation of bait for three or four months if necessary ?—A. 
The only question, of course, is as to the expense. There is no question 
at all that bait of any kind can be kept indefinitely by that process. I 
do not think there would be the slightest difficulty in building a refrig- 
erator on any ordinary fishing-vessel, cod or halibut, or other fishing — 
vessel, that should keep with perfect ease all the bait necessary for a 
long voyage. I have made some inquiries as to the amount of ice, and 
I am informed by Mr. Blackford, of New York, who is one of the largest 


ig 
; 


: 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2805 


operators of this mode, that to keep a room ten feet each way, ora 

thousand cubic feet, at a temperature of 20° above zero, would require 

about 2,000 pounds of ice and two bushels of salt per week. With that 
he thinks it could be done without any difficulty. Well, an ordinary 
vessel would require about seventy-five barrels of bait—an ordinary 

trawling-vessel. That would occupy a bulk something less than 600 

feet, so that probably four and a half tons of ice a month would keep 

that fish. And it must be remembered that his estimate was for keep- 
ing fish in midsummer in New York. The fishing-vessels would require 

a smaller expenditure of ice, as these vessels would be surrounded by 

a colder temperature. A stock of ten to twenty tons would in all proba- 

bility be amply sufficient both to replace the waste by melting and to 

preserve the bait. 

Q. Have you any doubt that some method like that will be put into 
immediate and successful use, if there is sufficient call for it ?—A. I 
have no doubt the experiment will be tried within atwelvemonth. An- 
other method of preserving is by drying. Squid, for instance, and 
clams, and a great many other kinds of bait can be dried without using 
any appreciable chemical, and can be readily softened in water. I no- 
ticed lately in a Newfoundland paper a paragraph recommending that, 

_ in view of the fact that the squid are found there for a limited period of 
time, the people should go into the industry of drying squid for bait, 

so that it would always be available’ for the purpose of cod-fishing. I 

think the suggestion is an excellent one, and I have no doubt it will be 

carried out. ; 

Q. Now, what is the supply of bait for codfish on the American coast ? 
| —A. Well, as the codfish eats everything, there is a pretty abundant 
_ stock to callupon. Of course, the bait-fish are abundant, the menhaden 

and herring. The only bait-fish that is not found is the caplin. The 
| herring is very abundant on the American coast, and the alewives enor- 
' mously abundant. Squid are very abundant of two or three species, 
_ and, of course, clams of various kinds. Then we have one shell-fish 

that we possess. It is never used here, although it is very abundant; 
_ but it is almost exclusively the bait for trawling on the coast of Great 
_ Britain. This shell-fish is known as the whelp, or winkle. 

Q. Is it a kind of mussel ?—A. No; it is a kind of univalve shell 
(submits specimen), and is almost exclusively used for the capture of 
| od in England on deep-water trawl-liners. It is not used here at all. 

_  Q. Why is it not used here?—A. I don’t know except that they have 
| other bait that they get at more readily, and they have not learned how 
| to use this. 

Q. But it is very abundant ?—A. Yes; quite as abundant as it is any- 
|| where. This is a rather small specimen. The advantage of this kind 
| Of bait is that it can be kept alive for a long time merely by moistening 
|| itor keeping it in water, so there is no question about salting it or 

using ice or any other application. 


' By Sir Alexander Galt : 

Q. Is there any particular locality for that?—A. It is extremely 
| abundant all through the northern seas. I am a little surprised that I 
|, have not seen more of them here. It is a northern shell. I presume it 
| is very abundant in Newfoundland, and to the north. At any rate it is 
| in any desired abundance in the Bay of Fundy, but not south of Cape 
_ _ Q. From all you have learned, have you any doubt that, supposing the 
| fishermen of the United States were precluded from using any bait ex . 


a 


Ses nS 
ee 
o = 


2806 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


cept what could be got upon their own coast, they could obtain a suffi- 
cient supply there ?—A. Well, unless the American fishery should be 
expanded to very enormous limits, far in excess of what it is now, I can’t 
see that there would be any difficulty. I may refer to one bait at our 
command, which is an excellent bait—salt liver. In some parts that is 
considered an excellent bait. Of course each'part of the world swears 
by its own particular bait. While the Cape Cod man swears by men- 
haden, the Newfoundlander by herring and caplin, and the Englishman 
by winkles, the Dutchman swears by salt liver. 

Q. We could have that, of course.—A. Yes. Then the roes of cod 
are good for bait. 

Q. What do you say about gurry? We hada good deal about that 
in the early part of this inquiry. Be so good as to tell what opinion 
you have or what conclusion you have come to about its use and abuse. 
—A. It hardly applies to cod any more than to any other fish cleaned 
at sea. The gurry is the offal, and that of course may be of salmon or 
cod or haddock or mackerel. The practice of throwing overboard gurry 
is in many respects reprehensible, because in the first place it is a very 
great waste of animal matter. Theapplicability of this offal to commer- 
cial purposes is such that whenever it can be had in sufficient quantities 
it should be utilized. It is so on the coast of Norway. An enormous 
number of pounds of fertilizer are made out of the gurry, and the heads 
are dried and-used for food for dogs and cattle. I presume you refer, 
however, to the supposed influence of the gurry on the fishing grounds 
more particularly. Well, in the first place more of it can be used now. 
In the process of hard freezing applied to cod it is brought in more asa _ 
fresh fish. But a large proportion of what is thrown overboard can be _ 
utilized. It can all be utilized, and it would be very proper, I think, to 
impose scme penalty upon the waste of the gurry by throwing it over- 
board, in favor of securing its preservation and utilization. But of 
course the question is as to what influence the gurry can exercise upon 
the sea fishery supposing it to be abundant and to be thrown over- 
board. I have no practical experience in regard to that. I know a 
great many persons testify that it is very objectionable. The reason 
why I should be inclined to attribute very little importance to the ob- | 
jection is the readiness with which all such offal is consumed in the sea 
by the scavengers appointed by nature to destroy it. In the northern ‘ 
seas, where codfish are most abundant and this gurry is in the greatest 
abundance, the waters abound with countless numbers of minute crus- 
taceans whose business it is to destroy animal matter. The so called 
sea fleas are so active that if you take a fish the size of a codfish and 
put it in a bag of net-work and put it overboard where it will be exposed 
for a tide in water, of anywhere from five to ten or twenty fathoms, you 
will find, as a general rule, that next day you will have the bones picked 
clean and a perfect skeleton without a single particle of flesh. I have 
had thousands of skeletons (I may say literally so) of fishes and birds 
and small quadrupeds prepared for museum purposes by simply expos: | 
ing them to the action of the sea fleas. I have put them in bags perfo- _ 
rated with holes and left them at the edge of low tide for a tide or two, 
and the skeleton would be perfectly complete without a bit of meat left. — 

(). Well, these sea scavengers, are they usually at the bottom ?—A. , 
Everywhere, at the bottom and the top. Then there are the dogfish, the || 
small sharks, catfish, goosefish, sculpins, and the codfish themselves, @ 
variety of lobsters, and other inhabitants of the sea, that are at work, 
always ready and eager to seize anything of this kind and consume if. 
Then when the bones are exposed there are the sea-urchins, that make 


——_ —" ae 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2807 


aspecialty of devouring them. Now, I cannot say but that this mate- 
rial, under certain circumstances, may lodge in the crevices of the rocks 
and remain there and become an offense to the surrounding fisk, 
but I rather suspect that the trouble about the gurry is that it attracts 
the predatory fish. Where it is thrown overboard it tolls them from a 
long distance. The dogfish, the shark, and other fish are attracted and 
come to the place where this offal has been thrown overboard, and after 
they have consumed all that they turn their attention to the cod and 
other fish that may be there and drive them off. 

Q. So that even throwing overboard the gurry there is a danger of 
defeating your own purpose ?—A. Yes; certainly. That is the hypoth- 
esis given as to the supposed evil effect of. throwing overboard the offal in 
the European waters. It prevents the fishing there as long as this state 
of things lasts, bat whether there is an actual injury otherwise I cannot 


_ gay. The general presumption is against the idea that these substances 


ean have a lodgment for any length of time to produce any offense. It 
might do it in fresh water. In the lakes you may have such a condition 


_ where those scavengers are not provided. But it hardly seems to me 
_ that it can be in the seas, in the northern seas especially. 


Q. What is the geographical distribution of mackerel? — A. The 
mackerel is a fish that has not so northerly a distribution as the 
cod, and perhaps extends somewhat further south; otherwise it is 
found over, to a very considerable extent, the same range. It is found 


- as far south as the Azores in European waters, and as far as Spitzber- 


gen and Norway to the north. On our southern coast we find it very 
rarely, and very few individual specimens have been taken in the vicinity 
of Charleston. It has never been taken in the West Indies; never in 
Bermuda, [ believe; but it is found as far north as the Straits of Belle 
Isle, and how much further north I cannot say. The two species 
(American and European) are believed to be identical, and although 


» they are constantly within a comparatively small number of leagues of 


each other, yet they do occur all the way across. 

Q. What is the season for mackerel ?—A. In America the mackerel 
season is in spring, summer, and autumn. In winter they are not found 
on our coast, and we dou’t get them, but we have them on our shores as 
early as the middle of April and as late as November. 

Q. New, as to the variation of seasons. What do you say about that? 
—A. It is very-rarely they appear in the same abundance in two succes- 


| Sive years, or, at least, it is rarely that the sum total of the experience 


of the fishermen gives about the same aggregate. Sometimes they are 
$0 scarce that the actual catch of one year will be much below that of 


' other years, but we cannot say there are any fewer fish actually in the 
_ water. It may be that they take a different line; they may keep in dif- 


ferent waters; they may show themselves less to fishermen; and may 
have other modes of variation; but we only know by the practical re- 
Sults of fishing that the catch in some seasons is much greater than in 
others. 

-Q. What do you think is known or what do you think is the best 
conjecture as to their migrations ?—A. There have been a great many 
hypotheses on the subject of the migration of mackerel. At one time 
mackerel, as was supposed to be the case with cod and sea-herring, was 
believed to have an extreme range, that a large school traversed the coast 
of America or Europe, and swept over a range of thousands of miles, 
making a circuit that occupied one year in its ‘completion. Bat the evi- 
dence at the present time tends to show that the mackerel comes in on 


_the.American coast as a great army, broadside, and appears within a 


-? 


2808 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


reasonable length of time, or very nearly the same time, on all that ex- 
tent of coast. 

Q. Do you think it strikes the coast a little later to the north anda 
little earlier to the south 7—A. The left wing of the army, as we might 
call it, strikes the American coast first, and the right wing strikes the 
Bay of St. Lawrence last; but it comes in with a broad sweep, not moy- 
ing along the coast but coming in broadside. When the quickening in- 
fluence of the spring sun is felt on this great body of fish somewhere 
outside, where I cannot say, they start, and the given temperature is 
* reached sooner at Cape Hatteras than at Bay St. Lawrence; but I do 
not believe that the fish that enter the bay always skirt the American 
coast, nor do I believe that the American fish go iuto the bay. They 
come in a large number of schools, each school representing a family, 
that is, they spawn together, and they may have a short lateral move- 
ment, and may move a limited number of miles along the coast till they 
find a satisfactory spawning-ground ; but, as a general rule, they aggre- 
gate in three large bodies; one of those bodies is about Block Island and 
Nantucket shoals, another is in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy, 
and another in Bay St. Lawrence. There are connections between those 
three bodies. You find them all along the coast; there are a certain 
number which spawn and are taken all along the coast; they are 
caught in weirs and pounds in spring and fall within one hundred yards 
of the shore; but the mass, as far as I can learn from the testimony pre- 
sented before the Commission, are aggregated in those three great bodies. 

Q. Is anything known about their winter quarters?—A. Nothing 
definite. We miss them for several months, from the end of November 
until March and April, and we say, we guess, we suggest they go into 
the Gulf Stream. That they go somewhere where they can find a tem- 
perature that suits them and there they remain, is clear; but it is a little 
remarkable that they never have been seen schooling in the Gulf Stream, 
that they never have shown themselves, that no fisherman, mackereler, 
or steamboat captain has ever reported, so far as my information goes, 
a school of mackerel in the winter season. If they were free swimmers, 
one would suppose they would show themselves under such circum- 
staces. There is a belief very generally entertained among fishermen 
that they gointo the mud and hybernate. That is an hypothesis I have 
nothing to say against. It seems a little remarkable that So freea 
swimmer as the mackerel should go into mud to spend its winter, but 
there is abundance of analogy for it. Plenty of fish bury themselves in 
mud in the winter time and go down two or three feet deep. There are 
fish that are so ready to bury themselves in mud you can dig them out 
of an almost dry patch as you could potatoes. The European tench, 
the Australian mud-fish, and dozens of species do that. There is nothing 
whatever in the economy of the mackerel or in the economy of fish gen- 
erally against this idea, that it is an inhabitant of the mud. And the 
fishermen believe that the scale, which grows over the eyes, according 
to their account, in winter, is intended to curb their natural impetuosity 
and make them more willing to go into mud and stay there in winter 
and not be schooling out on the surface of the water. There are well- 
authenticated cases of fish being taken from the mud between the prongs 


of the jig when spearing for eels. That this has occurred off the Nova‘ 


Scotia coast, in St. Margaret’s Bay and Bras d’Or, Cape Breton, and 
parts of the Bay of St. Lawrence, I am assured is not at all doubtful. 
Q. Do not fishermen mainly retain the old theory of the northern set 
of the whole body ?—A. Very largely, but I think latterly they are 
changing their views. 


° ke ae 


q —- - 
ll 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2809. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 

Q. The fish were mackerel that were brought out of the mud ?—A, 
When after eels they brought up mackerel out of the mud, in several 
instances, in January. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Q. What can you tell the Commission about the period of the spawn- 
ing of mackerel ?—A. Mackerel spawn almost immediately after they 
visit our shores. The earliest fish taken in the weirs. and pounds in 


_ Vineyard Sound and Buzzard’s Bay are full of ripe spawn, so that when 


the fish are taken out of the pounds and put into boats to bring them to 


_ shore there are sometimes quarts and pecks of the spawn in the bottom 


of the boats. It runs out with the utmost freedom, as it does with any 
full-spawning fish. That period ranges from the middle of May on our 


_ eoast, and from June and July in Bay St. Lawrence. Mr. Whiteaves 


says they spawn in Bay Chaleursin June. The season extends from 
the early part of May to the beginning of July. | 
Q. Where do the mackerel deposit the eggs?—A. The mackerel, 


| like all sea fish, with the exception of the herring, the tom-cod, and scul- 
_ pin, has a free floating egg. Theegg is discharged in the water wher- 


ever the fish happen to be, inshore or offshore, and it floats just under 


| the same condition that the egg of the cod does. It has a small globule 
_ of oil as a buoy, and it floats on the surface or any where from that to half 
| way down, or, perhaps, almost to the bottom, depending on the gravity 


of the egg and the specific gravity of the water. 
Q. Is the mackerel supposed to be able to control the time when it 


_ will spawn ?—A. When the egg is ripe it has to be discharged, what- 
' ever happens. The egg cannot be retained after it is overripe. 


Q. How do the eggs of each mackerel compare in numbers with 
those of the cod?—A. The average of the mackerel spawn is about 
500,000. They are very small, as you can imagine, for mackerel is not 
a very large fish. The eggs, when spawned, are only about one-fiftieth 
of an inch in diameter, about half the size of that of the cod. They 


' vary in size, some being smaller and others larger, but they only vary 


within moderate limits. 
Q. You say they spawned all along the American coast 7—A. I pre- 
sume they spawn in some numbers along the entire coast from the shore 


_ of Virginia to the coast of Labrador ; formerly they spawned on the coast 
' of Newfoundland, when mackerel were caught there, where they were 


very abundant a great many years ago, and also off the Bay of Fundy, 
when mackerel] were abundant there. 

Q. What is the foed of the young mackerel ?—A. The young mackerel, 
like the young of most other fish, feed on diatoms and other marine plants 
of low origin. They feed on the eggs of crabs and marine animals, 
probably on the small eggs of fish themselves, and as they grow they 
eat anything small enough to be swallowed. They don’t bite as bluefish 
do, but they take everything at one mouthful and swallow it whole. 

Q. And what is the food of the adult fish ?—A: The adult fish feed 
very largely upon young fish, sand lantz and young herring, and prob- 
ably upon the young of their own kind. They are cannibals, as all fish 
are. They feed very largely upon whatis called hay-seed orcayenne; that 
is a minute kind of shrimp, which is so diminutive you require a miero- 
Scope to separate it into its component parts. They feed also on large 
Shrimps and on the young of large crabs. Its favorite food in summer 


is what fishermen have described as all-eyes, that is, young fish which, 
| 80 far as I can judge, must be young mackerel, because I do not know 


« 
‘ 


2810 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


any other fish that could be so abundant of that size at that season of 
the year. It is called all-eyes, because its body is perfectly transparent, 
and when you see them swimming in the sunlight you can only see two 
eyes, as two small, dark specks. That occurs in almost incredible abun- 
dance, covering miles square, and furnishing food for an enormous yield 
of fish. 

Q. With regard to its bearing upon the locations of mackerel. I will 

ask whether there is any particular place where the food of mackerel is 
to be found, or whether it is all along the coast where the mackerel 
come ?—A. The shrimp belongs to a class of crustaceans which inhabit 
the high seas everywhere. We took them this year in great quantities 
in coming across from Salem to Halifax, at George’s, La Have, and 
Brown’s Banks, and in Halifax Harbor. We take them in Eastport, 
Salem, and Portland Harbors, and, as far as I am advised, by the spe- 
cialists who are associated with me, there is no part of the ocean where 
these small animals are not to be found in ample abundance, sometimee 
enormously aggregated and at other times less common. They are 
found at all depths of water, from the surface to the bottom. We take 
them in our dredge and in our midway and surface nets. Those and 
the young of the large crabs are found under all circumstances and con- 
ditions. 
' Q. Then we take the common bait, pogies, or menhaden. They are 
mackerel bait, are they not?—A. Eaten by mackerel? I do not think 
they are, unless they eat them in the winter time.’ As to the spawning 
of pogies, we know nothing about it; we infer they spawn in winter off 
the southern coast. 

Q. Are not menhaden used as bait for mackerel by fishermen ?—A. 
The menhaden itself is taken all through the mackerel season at some 
part of the American coast.. 


Q. Is it abundant within your observation ?—A. Yes; it is almost the | 


most abundant of our fish; indeed, it is a question which is most abun- 
dant, sea-herring or menhaden. 

Q. In regard to the catching of mackerel as affecting the supply and 
the probable diminution or increase of mackerel, what bave you to tell 


the Commission about the mode of taking mackerel?—A. The mackerel | 


is taken in a great variety of ways. At present it is taken by jig hook 
and by the netin some form. Formerly it was taken by means of hooks, 
as we do for bluefish, sailing backward and forward in a boat having a 


number of lines put from the vessel, and taking them when the vessel | 


is under full speed. That method is still practiced on the coast of Eu- 
rope, where mackerel are still taken in that way. Then it was found 


that by keeping the vessel comparatively motionless and throwing chum | 


or chopped meat overboard mackerel could be brought up to the vessel, 
and that proved a much more efficient and thorough mode of capture. 
Nets were introduced, and many mackerel are now taken in gill-nets. 
Seines, which are hauled to the shore, have’ been introduced at some 


places on the coast of Nova Scotia, and a good many mackerel are taken» 
in pounds and weirs, enormous quantities being taken in spring and > 


fall on the New England coast in that way. The purse-seine is perbaps 


the most efficient and comprehensive method, and it is used by vessels. | 


Q. What is the proper depth of a purse-seine 7—A. Twenty, twenty-, 


five, or thirty fathoms deep. 

Q. To be successful it has to have that depth 7—A. It has to be deep, 
but it must be shallower than the water, or it will get entangled and» 
torn. 

Q. Do you know whether it is true that there must be that depth in 


call 


| 
} 
4 
| 
{9 


——EE 


= ¥ 


4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2811 


order that the mackerel shall not discover it so quickly and escape ?—A, 
I could not say; that is a fisherman’s theory, which I know nothing 
about. 

Q. With regard to the preparation of mackerel, what have you to 
say ?—A. Nothing, except that they are used in increasing numbers 
fresh. The principal consumption in Europe is in fresh fish. The peo- 
ple there do not salt fish, or scarcely at all. They are put up in Europe, 
and I believe, to some extent, in Canada in cans; I do not think that is 
done in the United States. 

Q. Of course, you have obtained information as to the manner in 
which the fish can be used by consumers; you have nothing to do 


_ with*the mercantile side of the question?—A. No. 


Q. You have had it presented to you. Do you find that the demand 


. for fresh fish of all kinds is increasing ?—A. I know the tendency at the 
| present day is to substitute fresh fish for salt, in view of the improved 
. methods of preparation and preservation, and the improved means of 


communication, railroads and steamboats coming to the shores and car- 


vying away the fish and distributing it over an extent of thousands of 
_ miles and more in the interior, it bringing a much better price as fresh 
) fish, and yielding a much better profit to the seller. 


Q. Is that trade rapidly increasing ?—A. It is increasing with enor- 


' mous rapidity. Every year witnesses a great extension of the methods 
- and increased improvements in the mode of preparation and the size of 
. the refrigerators and their number. 


Q. In regard to herring, what have you to say ?—A. Herring is a fish 
of wide rauge. Though I cannot say it goes further north than cod— 


' perhaps it does not—it goes scarcely as far south on the American 
_eoast. I have not found any evidence of it being taken south of Block 


Island. It is very abundant off Block Island and Narragansett Bay in 


| winter, but whether it is found further south I am unable to say; it is 


' found as far north as Labrador, and much further. 


= 


Q. It is found from Block Island to the shores of Labrador in great 
abundance 7—A. Yes. 

Q. It is pretty fairly distributed all along ?—A. Yes; in some locali- 
ties they are found in greater abundance at some periods of the year; 
but there is no part of the American coast, from Labrador to Block 
Island, where they are not found during a certain number of months. 

Q. What are the movements of this fish 7—A. They present migra- 


| tions not so extensive and demonstrative as that of mackerel, but more 


so than those of cod. They probably move from their ground from time 
to time in search of food, and generally have definite places for spawn- 
ing, to which they resort at different seasons of the year at each par- 
ticular coast. While the spawn is deposited, as a general rule, in cer- ° 
tain localities, it is sometimes a matter of uncertainty. The destruction 
of herring has been less in America than in Europe, where it has been 
very marked. There are extensive regions where formerly the herring 
business was carried on, from which they have entirely disappeared, so — 
much so that they import herring from Scotland and America. 

Q. As to the egg of the herring ?—A. The egg is larger than that of 
the cod, and is about one-twentieth of an inch in diameter. ° 

Q. What is the number to each fish ?—A. About 30,000. 

Q. Do you think they have any particular spawning-ground ?—A. 
They have definite localities that are preferred by them. They spawn 
round the Magdalen Islandsin great abundance, and in the bays of 
Newfoundland. The most extensive spawning-ground on the southern 
coast is round the southern end of Grand Manan, which is one of the 


2812 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


most interesting and extensive spawning-grounds I know of. But they 
spawn also all along the reefs and rocky places of the New England 
coast as far as No Man’s Land and Block Island. 

Q. The yield of herring in New England, is it and can it be made 
very large ?—A. I presume as many herring could be taken in New 
England, in seasons when they are able to be taken, as might be called 
for, if the price of them warranted it. 

Q. Herring does not bring much in the market ?—A. I believe not; 
ey are taken in both spring and fall, but they are most abundant in 
the fall. 

Q. I should like to put one or two questions to you bearing a good 
deal on this subject which the Commission has before it, respecting the 
kinds of fish which can be and are used in the United States. Leaving 
out cod, mackerel, and herring, will you tell the Commission what has 
been discovered regarding the kinds of fish that are used as a substi- 
tute for mackerel—salted fish, I mean ?—A. There is a great variety in 
vast abundance of many kinds of fish all along the coast of the United 
States, from Saint John’s River, Florida, and further south to the Bay 
of Fundy, and many of those could be utilized to very great advantage 
if there wasademand. They are taken in very large quantities and con- 
sumed as fresh fish, but they are not prepared in large quantities, with 
the exception of the Southern mullet. 

Q. How far north is mullet found 7—A. It straggles as far as Cape 
Cod; it is quite abundant at some seasons on the south side of New 
England, but not sufficiently so for marketable purposes, but off the 
coast of Virginia, and off the Carolinas, and all the way down to the 
extremity of Florida, the mullet is in quantities scarcely credible. 
They are taken and sold in great numbers; many thousands of barrels 
are put up, and if there was any speedy call for them they could be 
furnished. I presume I am safe in saying that one million barrels of 
mullet could be furnished annually from the south shore of Chesapeake 
Bay to the south end of Florida, if they were called for. 

Q. How far has the mullet come into the market now ?—A. The mul- 
let does not come into the Northern market at all, but in North Carolina, 
South Carolina, and Georgia it fills the markets at the present time, 
excluding other kinds of imported fish. In former years there was 2 . 
great demand for herring and mackerel, but the mullet is supplying the 
markets because they are sold fresher and supplied at much lower price, 
a ri are considered by the Southern people a much superior article — 
of food. | 

Q. Is it preferred to mackerel as a salted fish ?—A. The persons — 
_ familiar with mackerel and with mullet from whom I have made in- — 
quiries—I never tasted salt mullet—give the preference to mullet. It — 
is a fatter, sweeter, and better fish, and of rather larger size. They 
grade up to 90 toa barrel of 200 pounds, and go down to three-quarters 
. of a pound, and as a salt fish the preference is given by all from whom _ 
I have inquired to the mullet. 

Q. Do you think the failure of the mackerel market in the Southern | 
and Southwestern States is largely attributable to the introduction of 
mullet ?—A. I cannot say that, but I imagine it must have a very de-_ 
cided influence. 1 

Q. Can the mullet be caught as easily as mackerel ?—A. More easily. i 
It is entirely a shore fish, and is taken with seines hauled up on the— 
banks by men who have no capital, but who are able to command a row- | 
boat with which to lay out their seines, and they sometimes catch 100, 
barrels a day per man, and sometimes as many as 500 barrels have been | 


3 


_< 


| AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2813 


taken at a single haul. The capital invested is only the boat, the seine, 

perhaps 100 or 200 yards long, the salt necessary for preserving the fish, 

and splitting boards and barrels. 

Q. Can pounds be used ?—A. They have not been used, and I doubt 
whether they could be used. Pounds are not available in the sandy 
regions of the South. 

Q. They are taken by seining ?—A. Yes, seines can be used. This 
work is entirely prosecuted by natives of the coast, and about two-thirds 

. of the coast population are employed in the capture of these fish. 

Q. Then the business has grown very much ?—A. It has grown very 
. rapidly. 

Q. When was it first known to you as a fish for the market ?—A. I 
_ never knew anything about it until 1872. 

Q. Then it has been known during only five years ?—A. I cannot say; 
_ it has been known to me that length of time. 

Q. During that time the business has very much inereased 7—A. Iam 
_ soinformed; I cannot speak personally. All my information of it is 
_ from reports made to me in replies to circulars issued in 1872 and 1873. 
_ 1 have not issued a mullet circular since that time, when I issued a 
' special circular asking information regarding the mullet. 

_ Q. Then it is your opinion that the mullet has become, to some extent, 
_ and will become, an important source of food supply ?—A. It is destined, 

I suppose, to be a very formidable rival and competitor of the mackerel. 
_ I know in 1872 a single county in North Carolina put up 70,000 barrels 
of mullet, a single county of five States covering the mullet region. 

Q. Repeat that statement.—A. I say 70,000 barrels of mullet were 

packed in Carteret County, North Carolina, in 1872—one county in the 
_ States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 
_ Florida, where mullet oceurs in great abundance durivg two or three 
) months of the year. It is during the spawning season of the mullet 
» that it is taken in this quantity, and mullet roes form a special delicacy 
» over which every Southerner exults. It is a separate business, the roes 
_ being smoked and salted and sold in large quantities. » 
_ Q. Perhaps a reason—to get into the region of political economy— 
» why mullet-fishing was not prosecuted formerly, was that the Southern 
people were not fishing-people under the slave system?—A. They 
probably had not a proper method of taking them. They used more 
_) easting nets than seines. 

Q. State to the Commission what mode of fishing and what kinds of 
| fish are caught on the south of the New England coast, south of Cape 
/ Cod. Is it nota great region for fish ?—A. The variety of fish taken on 
|| the shores south of Cape Cod is very great, and constitutes a very im- 
portant element in the food resources of the country. Many of them 
are fish of very great value as food, some selling as high as one dollar 
per pound, every pound of that fish that can be brought into market 
bringing never less than 60 cents, and up to one dollar per pound. 
Other fish range from 20 cents, 35 cents, and 40 cents per pound. Others’ 
from.20 cents to 25 cents, very few bringing less than 8 cents and 10 
cents a pound as fresh fish. 
| Q. What kinds of fish are they which bring the high price of a dollar 
|, @pound 7—A. The pompano, which is the highest-priced fish. 


By Sir Alexander Galt:* 
| Q. To what size does it grow ?—A. Three pounds is the maximum, 


— 


Itis more generally one pound. The pompano brings one dollar per 
pound when it is freshly caught. Sometimes when it is brought to 


2814 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


New York and kept for a long time the price may come down. I know 
one occasion when it was sold at 10 cents a pound; but the fish was not 
marketable and should not have been sold. The next best fish is 
Spanish mackerel, a fish of remarkable excellence. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. In New York market at the proper season what does it bring ?— 
A. I don’t suppose it is ever sold under 25 cents per pound, and from 
that to 40 cents. 

Q. Is that a mackerel 7—A. It belongs to the mackerel family, and 
weighs about three pounds. There is the cero, a kind of Spanish mack- 
erel, which goes up to 15 pounds. Those are all found from Cape Cod 
to Florida along the entire coast. There is the scup, which occurs from 
Florida to Cape Cod in great abundance. 

Q. The scup is found in great abundance off the south coast of Massa- 
chusetts and Rhode Island?—A. Yes. There is also sea bass, which is 
one of the finest of the American fish, and is worth from 18 cents to 25 
cents per pounds 

Q. How many pounds do they average in weight ?—A. From one to 
four pounds; three pounds is a large fish. 


Q. They are found in abundance on the south coast of New England? | 


—A. Yes; very abundant. There is also the kingfish and the bonito, 
which is a very important fish. 

Q. There is a fish of that character extending from Block Island away 
down to Cape Hatteras ?—A. It is one of the same family. It weighs 
up to five pounds. I have seen five thousand of those fish taken at a 
single time in a fishing-pound at Menemsha Bight. There is the blue- 
fish, which is the piece de resistance. There is the squeteague; of that 
fish I have seen 25,000 pounds taken at a haul. 

Q. The bluefish is a great fish in the market ?—A. It is the princi- 
pal fresh fish during the summer season on the coast of the United 
States from Cape Cod to North Carolina. 

Q. Caught all along the shores 7?—A. All along the coast, being most 
abundant in the summer season toward Cape Cod, and in winter in 
North Carolina. 

Q. There is a great drift through Vineyard Sound 7—A. There is a 
numerous catch. 

(. Are not the people on the southern coast of Massachusetts, and on 
the coast of Rhode Island, now very much engaged in catching fresh 
fish ?—A. Very largely, taking them in pounds and gill nets, and other 
modes of capture. 

Q. Is this a part of the development of the fresh fish market ?—A. 
Yes. Since bluefish has come back to the coast it has constituted an 
enormous element in the supply of fresh fish; it is not the controlling 
element, but it is the largest single element, although combining the 


striped bass, squeteague, mullet, and scup, they considerably outnumber | 


the bluefish. (Photographs of the fish referred to were exhibited. ) 

Q. What about tautog ?—A. It is an important fish, but is not in such 
immense abundance. While you talk of tautog being caught in thou- 
sands of pounds, you talk of others by hundreds of thousands or by 
millions. 


(. Pounds are very common on the American coast?—A. It constitutes 1 


the principal mode of summer fishing from round Cape Cod as far west as 


Long Island. Nearly all the fish taken on that coast are caught in the | 


pounds. The small tunny is a fish which of late years has come into 


notice, and it is believed to have disturbed the mackerel and menhaden — 


j 


= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2815 


this year. It was never recorded till I found it in 1871 in Martha’s Vine- 
yard, whereit was inenormous numbers. It is a fish weighing about 25 
Tends, and it is something like the horse mackerel, but they never grow 
more than 25 pounds. Not unfrequently 500 or 1 000 of them are taken 
in a single night in one of the pounds, but the people make no use of them 
and consider them valueless. They sell the fish weighing 25 pounds for 
25 cents. Itis a coarse fish and very dark meat, but still it is a food 
resource when other fish are not taken. These fish are found in the 
Mediterranean, where they are very much looked after and bring very 
_ good prices, they being specially salted and put up in oil. The Ameri- 
ean tunny is undistinguishable from the European, though efforts have 
been made to separate them. 

Q. The pound-fishing which has come into general use in the southern 
part of New England, what is its effect on the supply of fish ?—A. That 
is a question which I think will require a longer period of years than 

_ we have had for its definite determination. In 1871 I made my first in- 
quiries into these pounds, and satisfied myself then that they must have a 
_ positive influence upon the abundance of fish, in view of the concurrent 
enormous destruction of bluefish. I considered the bluefish was the 
| greatest agency in the destruction of our food fishes. Its relation to 
»seup and squeteague has long been established—that when bluefish 
| are abundant the other fish are rare, and the moment bluefish dimin- 
‘ish the other fish become enormously common. The squeteague in 
1862 was unknown as a fish east of the waters of New Jersey except 
in small numbers, and was not found in Martha’s Vineyard or Buzzard’s 
\ Bay. In 1872, ten years subsequently, so plentiful were they that I 
‘know myself of 5,000 fish being taken at a single haul, averaging five 
_ pounds each fish. The bluefish then began to diminish, and from that 
time were much less abundant than in 1850 or 1860. Those pounds and 
{the bluefish together I considered produced the decrease in the abun- 
‘dance of scup, sea bass, and tautog that has been so much complained 
jof. I urged very strongly, and I still maintain my view, on the legisla- 
| tures of Massachusetts and Rhode Island the propriety of exercising 
/ some sort of restriction upon the indiscriminate use of this apparatus. 
_Lrecommended that one day and two nights, that is, from Saturday 
| \ night, or, if possible, from Friday night till Monday morning, should be 
established as a close time during which those fish should not be taken 
| by any of those-devices, thus giving the fish a chance to get into the 
| 'Spawning-grounds inshore, thereby securing their perpetuity. 
I was quite satisfied in my own mind that unless something of this 
| kind was done, very serious results would happen. Very mach to my 
1] ' disgust, I must admit, the next year, even with all the abundance of 
|| ‘those engines, the young scup came in in quantities so great as to ex- 
ceed anything the oldest fisherman remembered, and thousands and 
|| tens of thousands of barrels of what was called dollar scup were sold. 
_|They were so thick in the pounds and so mixed with the fish that the 
/owners could scarcely pick out the marketable fish, and consequently 
had to let large portions of the contents of the pounds go away. Since 
_ then seup has been very much more abundant than it was when I wrote 
my book and report. 
, Q. How do you account for this great increase?—A. I think those 
were scup, belonging to further*south, which took a northern trip to 
uorthern waters and established themselves there. But I do urge in 
the most earnest manner the propriety of some restriction being placed 
on the pounds. I have not changed my views, although the evil has 
not arrived as I thought it would, and there are indications of some 


= 
| eae 


> 


2816 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


other agency; whether it be the diminution of the bluefish which per- 
mits the scup to increase or not I cannot say. 

Q. Is it true the bluefish is diminishing ?—A. It is not by any means 
so abundant as it was, very much to the regret of all people who catch 
them, either for market or for sport. 

Q. Can you remember the time when there was no bluefish on the 
American coast?—A. Iecannot. I know we have the record of the fact, 
and I know many persons who can remember it. Bluefish was absent 
from the American coast for sixty years, during which time there was 
not a single bluefish to be found on the coast. 

Q. You think the pounds should be dealt with as a matter for regu- 
lation and not for banishment ?—A. I don’t think the market would be 
amply supplied without them, and I don’t think it would be expedient 
to prohibit them. I think a certain amount of regulation, such as L 
have recommended, would be a great deal better for the fish and the 
fishermen. The disadvantage of the pounds is that they glut the mar- 
ket at times, so that there is no sale for the fish and fish are wasted, 
and by the adoption of a close time not only will it secure proper spawn- 
ing of the fish, but also equalize consumption. 


No. 69. 


WILLIAM J. MASS, of Chester, Nova Scotia, master mariner and fish- — 


erman, called on behalf of the Government of the United States. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. You are 27 years of age, I believe?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. And you were born at Chester, Nova Scotia?—A. Yes. 

Q: Your wife is residing at Dartmouth?—A. Yes. 

Q. You command the schooner Orinoco, sailing out of Gloucester ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. And you are a naturalized citizen of the United States?—A. Yes. 

Q. To whom does the schooner belong ?—A. John Pew. 

Q. Where have you been fishing this sammer?—A. I have been fish- 
ing in Bay St. Lawrence the latter part of the summer. - 

Q. About what time did you go into the bay?—A. About 20th Aa- 
gust, I believe. ‘ 

Q. When did you leave there?—A. Last Monday. 


Q. How many barrels of mackerel did you take in that time?—A, — 


About 100 barrels. 

Q. Sea barrels?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you catch them ?—A. At different places; some round 
Magdalen Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Point Miscou—all round— 
scattered. 

Q. When you went fishing to the bend of the island, how far from 
the shore did you get your fish?—A. As near as I could tell we were 
outside of the limits; that is to the best of my knowledge, but we did 
not measure. I should think we were outside of the three miles. 

Q. You have tried in and out?—A. Yes. 

Q. You say you have got about 100 sea barrels; how have the schoon- 
ers done that you have heard of ?—A. The others have done very little. 
Some vessels which were in at the first part of the season got some mack-~* 
see I don’t believe they will average 100 barrels all through, early 
and late. 

Q. If you can remember any particular schooners, and the quantities, 
they caught, name them.—A. The William S. Baker had about 10 bar- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2817 


rels. I believe she had been to the bay five weeks, but I could not tell 


exactly. 

Q. Where is she from?—A. She belongs to Gloucester; her captain 
is Captain Pierce. 

Q. Any others?—A. Capt. John Collins, in Helen M. Crosby, had 
10 barrels. He had been there quite a month; I heard six weeks. He 
went home to Gloucester. Capt. George Bass, in the Colonel Cook, of 
Gloucester, had about 80 barrels, and he had been in the bay eleven 
weeks, I think they told me. 

Q. Any others ?—A. The Rattler, belonging to Captain Leighton, had 
150 barrels, they told me. She had been in the bay over two and a half 
months. 

' Q. Have you heard of any larger catch than that of the Rattler?—A. 
|The John H. Kennedy, of Portland, had 90 barrels. 

' Q. Is that the largest catch you heard of ?—A. No; Captain Knowles 
‘in Harvest Home had 210 barrels. That is the largest catch I know of. 
‘Then there are other vessels with 12 or 15 barrels. The Serena Ann, 
\of Portland, had 15 barrels; the Lizzie Ann, of Portland, had 14 bar- 
Tels. 

Q. I want to know whether the mackerel-fishing of vessels in the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence has been a success or a failure this season, so far 
)as you know and from information given to you ?—A. Well, so far as 
‘my knowledge an: information extend, it has been a failure this year— 
the last two years. 
By Mr. Davies: 


Q. What is the name of your vessel ?—A. The Orinoco. 

Q. When did you come into the bay ?—A. We went into the bay, I 
| believe, on the 20th or 22d August. 

Q. Was there much fishing around Magdalen Islands this year ?—A. 
‘There has not been a great deal; there has been some mackerel there. 
- Q. Has the fishing there not been very bad ?—A. Yes, very bad. 

Q. Nothing at all done there?—A. I cannot say nothing at all. One 
or two vessels, out of 100 sail, have got a small share there; the rest 
have got nothing, you may say. 
 Q At what would you put the whole fleet in the bay ?—A. I could 
_ not tell exactly. 

Q. Would you say 250 sail altogether ?—A. No; there were not that 
|many this year.’ 

Q. Could you swear there were not?—A. I could not swear there 

were not. 

Q. Had you any means of forming a correct opinion ?—A. I don’t 
‘think there were more than 100 sail. 

Q. Would you call it 200 sail?—A. It might be 200. 

Q. You cannot swear that it is more or less ?—A. I could not swear. 
We saw lots of vessels, but I did not keep the run of them. 

Q. When you went into the bay, where did you first go?—A. We 

tried from one place to another. 

Q. Where. did you go first?—A. To Port Hood and Cape George. We 

tried there close inshore, and we tried out. Inshore we did not raise 
anything worth speaking of; we also tried off shore and got a few mack- 
jierel. We tried two other days, and as there did not appear to be much 
| prospect of a catch, we went from there to Point Miscou. 

Q. Did you try at Magdalen Islands ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did-you get any there ?—A. Yes. 
QQ. How many ?—A. About 25 barrels. We stopped there about 
‘twelve days. 
li7 F 


> 


- 


- 2818 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Which was your main fishing-ground—Prince Edward Island ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Is that the main fishing-ground of the fleet this summer ?—A. I 
could not tell you that. There are lots of vessels in during the whole 
year; they had tried in other places, but most mackerel had been got 
at Magdalen Islands. 

Q. Name one vessel that has got mackerel at Magdalen Islands ?—A. 
The Rambler, Captain R. Johnson, 200 barrels; he is high-liner. 

Q. Where did you see him ?—A. At Georgetown, two weeks ago. 

Q. What was he doing there ?—A. He was there for a harbor. 

Q. Not there fishing?—A. He had come across from Magdalen 
Islands, having run short of outfit, and had to go to Canso to fit out. 

Q. How far is it from Georgetown to Magdalen Islands—over 100 
miles ?—A. About 140. 

Q. Could he not be running to Georgetown to fit, after fishing at 
Magdalen Islands ?—A. I can tell you how he came to be there. He 
came from the Magdalen Islands, and was going to Canso to refit, and 
on the way, there came on a breeze of wind, and he went to George- 
town; he will go back to the Magdalens. 

Q. He got 200 barrels ?—A. Yes; about 200 barrels. 

Q. You think he got them about the Magdalens ?—A. Yes; and Bird ’ 
Rocks. ie 

Q. When you were fishing, how many vessels were about Prince 
Edward Island? Tell me where you were fishing ?—A. We tried up 
and down. We did not get a great many at the island. We got some 
mackerel at Port Hood—a few mackerel. 

Q. Did you not tell me that Prince Edward Island was your main 
fishing-ground ?—A. We were there most of the time, but we did not 
get the most mackerel there. — 

Q. Where did you get most of your mackerel, if not at Prince Edward 
Island, Magdalen Islands, or Port Hood ?—A. We did not get a great 
many anywhere. \ We got most of our mackerel off Port Hood. 

Q. The first time you tried, you got none?—A. We went back after- 
wards. 

Q. When fishing off Prince Edward Island, did you fish much off 
East Point ?—A. We fished some there. ; 

Q. You do not profess to say that you did not catch fish within the 
limits there 7—A. I profess to say we did not catch many. I don’t say 
we did not catch any, but that the number was very small. 

Q. Are you prepared to say how many; or did you pay any attention 
to it?—A. No; it is pretty hard to tell exactly. 

Q. You did not pay any attention to it?—A. No. I think we did not 
eatch any worth speaking of. 

Q. Did you pay any particular attention to the three-mile limit ?—A. 
A man who has business on hand knows where he has done best, and 
calculates on going there again. If he does well at one place he always 
bears it in mind to go there again. 

Q. Did you pay any particular attention to how far you were from 
land when you caught your fish?—A. I took notice always when we 
tried for mackerel, we tried for mackerel inshore and then out. 


Q. You went wherever you thought you could find mackerel ?—A.4_ 


Yes. 


Q. This year you went in and out irrespective of the limit?—A. Yes. 


Q. Did you see boats fishing much there?—A. We saw some boats | 


out in the bend of the island; a good many mackerel boats were there. | 
We did not try much there. We went more round the Chapels. | 


| 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2819 


Q. That is where you fished chiefly ?—A. We were round there at 
different times, but we did not get many of our mackerel there. Some 
vessels got mackerel there. 

Q. You got mackerel off Port Hood ?—A. Yes; a good part of them. 

Q. You do not wish the Commission to understand that the low 
catches of vessels you have named are average catches ?—A. I gave you 

. the highest and the lowest catch. 

Q. Those are the lowest catches made in the fleet ?—A. They could 
not well have any and have less. 

Q. You do not wish the Commission to. understand that they were 
anything like the average catch ?—A. I said that, so far as my knowl- 
edge goes, they would not average over 100 barrels for the whole season. 

@. Have you asked the captains of many vessels what their catches 
have been ?—A. Yes; we always found that out. 

Q. What is your own catch 7—A. It is about 100 barrels. 

Q. Cannot you tell me exactly 7—A. I could not tell you exactly; it 
is allowed to be about 100 barrels. 

Q. Do you know what the catch of the Greyhound was? She is re- 
ported to me as having caught 230barrels. Is that correct ?—A. What 
Iheard was that she had 170. : 

Q. Did you hear that from the captain himself ?—A. I never spoke 
with him. 

Q. When did you hear that ?—A. Two weeks ago. 

Q. She might have caught up to that number after that ?—A. No. ° 

Q. Did you hear it from the captain himself?—A. I did not speak 
with the captain himself, but with the other men. 

Q. Your information, then, is third-hand ?7—A. I did not get it from 
him, but I gotit pretty straight. 

| Q. Do you know what the Moses Adams got ?—A. I could not tell ex- 
| actly. The captain was on board of my vessel, but I never inquired. 

Q. He is reported to have got 270 barrels COAT guess you will have 

| to take a good many off that. 

Q. What did they tell you the Moses Adams had got ?—A. One hun- 

| dred and seventy barrels. 
Q. When was that?—A. Just before he went home. He went home 
two or three days after that, so I was told. I know he did not catch 
any. I know that from a vessel which spoke with him as he was going 
home, and he was bearing up for the Strait of Canso. 
Q. Do you know when he got to Canso?—A. I know pretty nearly. 
| Q. How do you know, if you were not there? Might he not have 
|| got some at Margaree ?7—A. The vessel saw him going by Port Hood ; 
that is away tbis side of Margaree. 

Q. Do you know what the E. H. Horton got?—A. I don’t know any 
more than what I heard. 

Q. What did you hear ?—A. One hundred and sixty barrels. 

Q. How was it you did not give the names of those vessels as being 

| among those in the bay ?—A. [could not think of all. 

Q. Do you know how many the John Gerard, of Newburyport, 
caught?—A. I did not talk with her captain, but they said she had 150 
barrels. The Old Chad, of Newburyport, with nineteen hands—I know 

i this positively—got 120 barrels. 

Q. Do you know what the J.J. Clarke got?—A. I don’t know ex- 

'. You have got all the best there; there is not a poor one among 
m. 

Q. Do you-know what the Cayenne got?—A. Is she an American 

Vessel ? 


' 
j 


& 


2820 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I presume so.—A. I never saw her; I don’t know a vessel of that | 
nane. 

Q. Do you know what the Frederick Gering, jr., got? She is reported | 
with 330 barrels—A. Then they have got a big spurt. 

Q. You never heard of her?—A. Yes, I did; I heard she had 150 | 
barrels. 

Q. When did you hear that ?—A. I should judge about two weeks ago.* 

Q. Were all of those vessels in the bay two weeks ago?—A. I did not 
see the vessels, but I have talked with the men. 

Q. How many vessels were there in the bay when you left ?—A. There 
were about 35 sail of vessels with us when we went out of Canso. 

Q. How many did you leave when you came away ?—A. I could not 
tell. 

Q. Thirty-five or forty vessels ?—A. I should estimate over that, but 
that number is of those we saw there. 

Q. Do you kuow what the David F. Low got?—A. I could not tell 
positively; I have heard reports. 

Q. How many seasons have you been in the bay 7—A. About seven- 
teen seasons. 

Q. As master ?—A. No. 

Q. As hand?—A. As hand, except fae last year, ain I was in the 
bay as master. 

Q. You must have been fishing in the bay ever since you went into 
the bay at all?—-A. All but two seasons. 

Q. Where did you fish then ?—A. On the American shore; on George’s, 
La Have, and Grand Banks, two years; I was master. 

Q. What years were they ?—A. Last year and the year before. 

Q. During the years you fished in the bay, you fished both inside and 
outside the limits ?—A. We tried all over. 

Q. Inside and outside ?—A. To the best of my knowledge we caught 
most of the mackerel off shore. 

Q. You think you did ?—A. I am positive of it; all the largest spurts. 
I have caught as high as 130 barrels with hooks off shore. We caught 
them about nine miles off Entry Island, to the southeast; we got 130 
barrels from nine o’clock in the morning till half past four o’clock in 
the afternoon. 

Q. Have you fished much about Margaree?—A. Yes; a great deal 
round Margaree. 

Q. I believe in the fall nearly all the vessels fish there ?—A. They 
used to do so years ago; these last years there does not seem to have 
been anything round there. 


Q. What years do you speak of ?—A. This year and last year. My | 


brother was down in the bay last year, and he told me about it then. 
Q. This year you did not fish about Margaree much ?—A. We tried 
there, but did not take more than half a barrel. 


Q. That is known as one of the best fishing-grounds in the fall —A. f 


It used to be counted the best. 
Q. Up to the lust two years?—A. It was when I was in the bay ; that 
is, in the fall. 


Q. Most of the fleet went to fish there in the fall ?—A. There was 
large part which did not fish there. I used to be in Nova Scotia ves: — 
sels, and during the largest part of that time we saw very few Ameri; | 
can vessels. 

Q. At the time when you catch them inshore it always happens yo 
are in provincial vessels ?—A. It is not that at all. Most of the vessel 
would not content themselves staying in; they would go away >| 


oy 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2821 


the spurts would come at Margaree and Cheticamp, and we used to stop 
in. I was with my father, who owned a vessel called the Frank, which 
sailed for Halifax. We filled up two or three falls around Margaree. 
Very few American vessels were there. 

Q. What time was that?—A. We caught 200 barrels, about 5th No- 
vember ; I don’t judge we were inside the three miles then. 


By Mr. Foster: 

Q. How old were you when you first went into the bay 7—A. Eight 
years. 

Q. You were with your father?—A. Yes; my first trip was in the 
Frank. 

Q. When you fish round Margaree late in the autumn, how long do 
you stay—one week or two?—A. Sometimes one week, sometimes two. 
Sometimes we have to lay there ten or twelve days and cannot get out. 
Then perhaps one or two fine days will come, and we will get some 
mackerel. : 


FRIDAY, October 19, 1877. 


The Conference met. 
The examination of Prof. SPENCER F. BAIRD, called on behalf of the 
Government of the United States, resumed. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. There were some matters with regard to herring, in regard 
to which I did not ask you fully yesterday. Will you state to the Com- 
mission about the spawning-grounds of herring especially? I do not 
care for anything outside of the American coast.—Answer. The herring 
spawn along the whole coast of the United States, from the Bay of Fundy 
to No Man’s Land, which is a small island between Block Island and 
Martha’s Vineyard. I have specimens of spawn from almost all the 
localities between those two points, and I am informed they also spawn 
around Block Island, but I have never seen any evidence myself. 

Q. But you know as to the fact ?—A. I know it is so from testimony 
and reports. 

Q. Do the eggs of the herring lodge on the bottom ?—A. The herring 
is almost the one—is, | think, the only one—of our important sea fish, the 
eggs of which are adherent; that is to say, when discharged, it falls to 
the bottom and adheres to the sea-weed, gravel, and rock. Generally 
it is scattered, but not unfrequently a great part of the spawn of the 
fish will be aggregated into a mass of the size of a walnut or hickory 
nut, but more generally they are scattered and attached singly or by 
twos and threes to sea-weed. I have here specimens of the eggs in the 
mecrent form, some which I dragged up at the southern end of Grand 

anan. 

Q. Are the spawning-grounds extended along the coast all the way? 
—A. Yes; all the way. 

. Q. And are very numerous ?—<A. There is no reason to suppose there 
is any part of the coast at which they are wanting. ‘They are specially 
abundant about Cutler, in Maine, and about some of the islands off Pe- 
nobscot Bay, about Cape Elizabeth, Portsmouth, off Newburyport, and 
particularly along the edge of the coast from north and east of the en- 
trance of Massachusetts Bay. They also spawn inside of Cape Cod 
Bay, and all along the south coast of this region to No Man’s Land, as 
I have already mentioned. The spawning-season is later and later as 

- you go south. On the coast of the United States the herring spawns 
on the fall of the temperature, just as the salmon, cod, and trout do— 


2822 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


unlike the shad and mackerel, which spawn at a rising temperature. 
The moment the water along our coast gets to a certain degree of tem- 
perature, then the herring is incited to the act of spawning. I might 
say in completion of this point that herring spawns in the spring in Bay 
St. Lawrence and Newfoundland. It spawns in early summer at Grand 
Manan in July, August, and September. It spawns at the end of Sep- | 
tember in Eastern Maine, and it spawns in October off Boston, and does | 
not spawn till November and sometimes December at No Man’s Land. | 

Q. Making a difference of many months?—A. Yes, a difference of | 
from six to eight months. 
~ Q. Describe the modes. by which herring are caught on the coast of | 
the United States.—A. They are caught principally by weirs, pounds, | 
and gill-nets on our coast. They are caught with seines largely in Bay | 
St. Lawrence and Newfoundland, but the large, full-grown, spawning 
herring are usually taken in gill-nets on or near the spawning-ground, | 
A very large number are taken on the whole coast of Maine and in the 
Bay of Fundy in weirs, but the great body of these are smaller herring, 
and are not used as fresh fish. 

Q. How is it with weir fishing ?—A. The weir fishing is generally 
,conducted in Maine, and to some extent inside of Cape Cod to the north. 
South of Cape Cod they are more generally taken in pounds, but also 
in gill-nets. 

@. How are they taken along the Massachusetts coast?—A. They _ 
are taken, generally, in gill-nets in the fall. The regular pounds are. | 
usually not down as late as the herring season, butin spring large num- 
bers are taken in the pounds. 

Q. How do you feel sure that this statement about spawning on the 
coast is correct ?—A. By actual capture of the fish in the spawning 
season, and by dredging up their eggs from the bottom with apparatus 
we use for such purposes. 

Q. Is herring a very common fish on the United States coast ?—A. It 
is exceedingly abundant. It is not utilized at all to the extent of the 
capacity. The herring is not a very favorite fish, it is a cheap fish, and 
as there are so many better fish on the coast it is not very marketable 
for food. Itis sold in great quantities but at very low prices, and is 
used only by the poorer classes of the community. Of course it is used 
for bait, but as fresh fish it is very seldom seen on the tables of the well- 
to-do people. 

Q. Is it dried and pickled _ They are pickled to some extent. | 
Some are smoked, a great many are worked up in the form of bloaters, 
and in this form it is very mu Gente after. 

Q. You have been at the places where the business is carried on ?— 
A. I have seen 20 or 30 large boats, of a capacity of perhaps 500 barrels 
or more, filled with herring, lying at the wharf at Boston at one time. 
They are boats probably from 4 to 10 tons. 

Q. Market boats ?7—A. They are open boats, known as herring boats, | 
and the coast now is lined with the boats with gill-nets catching herring 
for the fall trade. 

Q. Have you anything to say about the predaceous fish, such as the 
shark and dogfish? Do you think they do a great deal of harm to the 
food-fish ?—A. They constitute a very important factor in the question 
of the abundance of fish on our coast. They destroy enormous weights 
and quantities of all the useful fish, and in proportion as they increase i 
in numbers the food-fish diminish and vice versa. They perform the — 
same function as bluefish ; they are constantly in the pursuit of other 


fish and destroying them. i 
ea 


_— 


' 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2823 


Q. There is no probability of changing that relation which fish seem to 
bear to’ one another ?—A. They all have the relation of attack, defense, 
pursuit, and flight. 

Q. But, notwithstanding that, I suppose they belong to what you call 
the balance of nature 7—A. The balances of nature are such that it is 
extremely difficult to say what will be the effect on the fisheries of de- 
stroying or multiplying a particular stock of fish. The sharks, for in- 
stance, are destroying great quantities of food-fish. A new enterprise 
has just been started, and will be opened in the course of a few weeks, 
to utilize the sharks, porpoises, dogfish, and tunnies. An establishment 
expects to work up twelve million pounds annually of those fish, for 
which heretofore there has not been a market. They are caught in great 
quantities on the shores, but not utilized, and now there is to be a mar- 
ket for them, and the parties offer the same price for them as they do 
for menhaden. 

Q. Where is the company started ?—A. At Wood’s Holl, Mass. The 
company expects to keep two or three steamers constantly traversing 
the coast from Block Island to Penobscot Bay, or Bay of Fundy, and the 
company advertises that it will take all dogfish, sharks, porpoises, black- 
fish, and other offal that may be offered to it, up to the amount, I think, 
of 20 or 25 tonsaday. By anew process, the oil will be extracted with- 


_ out heat, leaving the meat entirely free of grease, and, when it is dried, 


it will be ground up to make what they call fish flour, or meal, which 
can be used for fertilizing purposes or food, as you please. The same 
substance is made from cod in Norway and is an article of food. It 
makes a very nice form of food, and is-used as fish-cakes and other prep- 


- arations. 


Q. It can be made up like flour?—A. Yes; and can be mixed up with- 
out any difficulty. The effect of the abstraction of twelve million pounds 
of those predaceous fish will undoubtedly be very great. Whether, as 
those fish eat bluefish, it may not allow bluefish to multiply, and in that 
way restore the balance again, it is impossible to say; but if it was to 
take bluefish also, we would relax very largely the pressure on eatable 
fish, and they would necessarily increase. 

Q. Is the philosophy of that substantially that when one kind of 
predaceous fish becomes very{numerous, and is destroying useful fish, it~ 
either disappears in time, or by what we regard as the regular course of 
' nature, and the work of man, that fish diminishes, or is exterminated, 

and others take its place As After they have eaten up everything, 

they will start out and go somewhere else. Whenever they have made 
their favorite food scarce; they go somewhere else. So it is a very seri- 
ous question as to what had better be done, no matter what promise 
there may be, in regard to altering the relations willfully and purposely 
between the different forms of the animals of the sea. If you take them 
for food, you allow the consequences to come as they may, but any ques- 
tion of protecting one kind of fish, or destroying or exterminating 
others, should always be considered with a great deal of care, and from 
a great many points of view that do not strike the mind or attention at 
first thought. 
Q. To undertake to regulate the relations of fish beyond shoal water 
‘ where you can fish with nets, seines, and pounds, would be impracti- 
cable ?—A. It would be very difficult, ‘indeed, and the effect would prob- 
ably be very trifling. 
Q. You spoke yesterday of the fish of the Southern States, the fish- 
eries of which in the new order of things are being rather more de- 
veloped by greater diversity of industry, and so forth ; can you mention 


2824 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


any other fish that are coming into use ?—A. There are a great many 
species, probably not less than fifty, all having a definite value as an 
article of food, and all caught and consumed on the coast, or sent in 
limited quantities either to the Northern markets or to Cuba, that could 
be taken into consideration, but perhaps the capture of the fish that takes 
the rank of fisheries relates more particularly to the mullet, menhaden, 
striped bass, and bluefish. There is a very extensive fishery of blue- 
fish on the southern coast. The bluefish, after leaving the northern 
waters, spends a certain time on the coast of Virginia and North Caro- 
lina, and by the time it gets back thereit has attained enormous dimen- 
sions, the fishes being generally from 12 to 15 pounds, at which size 
they are found only casually and occasionally on the northern coast. It 
is not at allan uncommon thing for one fishery of a single locality to 
take 3,000 bluefish, averaging 12 pounds each fish. 

Q. What do you mean by one fishery 7—A. A single station at one 
particular point, the fishing being controlled by one man or firm. An 
enormous number of biluefish are sent late in fall and in early winter 
to the Northern markets. 

Q. So that when bluefish leave the New England coast, they do not 
disappear altogether from the American coast 7—A. Not atall. It dis- 
appears some time in February, and where it goes, we cannot tell. 

Q. It disappears from the southern coast 7—A. Yes. A small school 
of bluefish is found all the year south to Florida, but the large school 
of blue fish usually disappears in February, and, indeed, I may say, we 
never see it again. The fish, as they make their appearance in spring, 
are smaller fish. 

Q. Do they first appear on the south coast of New England ?—A. On 
first appearing on the coast of Carolina and Virginia, they come in 
something like the mackerel, only they have a rather more coastwise 
travel, because they do not spawn on the northern coast. Probably 
the big bluefish go out somewhere to spawn, but what becomes of them, 
whether they spawn themselves out to acondition of nonentity, I cannot 
say. We donot see them; they may go to Africa, or the Mauritius, for 
bluefish are found ali the world over; but whether they go to any other 
portion of the world from the United States, I cannot say. 

Q. What have you to tell the Commission about menhaden at the 
South 7—A. The menhaden is a very important fish on the south coast 
as an article of food. It is caught, salted, and pickled, and to some ex- 
tent used in the country. There is quite a large export of menbaden to 
the West Indies from the Southern States. 

Q. Is it nsed fresh ?—A. It is salted and pickled ; it is also eaten fresh 
very largely, and considered a very capital article of food. 

Q. You have eaten it yourself?—A. Yes; it is a sweet fish, quite as 
good as herring, but rather more bony; the bones are, however, more 


adherent to the skeleton. You can prepare menhaden by maceration, | 
so that the greater part of the bones will stick to the vertebral column, | 


instead of being loose and lying about the muscular parts, as in herrings. 
Q. Is it also salted in the South 7—A. Yes. 
Q. Is there now a large business in menhaden, or is there likely to 
be 7—A. It is a business capable of almost any extension for which there 


is a demand. There is no limit apparently, speaking in reasonable * 


terms, to the number that can be taken, any more than there is in the 
North. There is nothing like the same quantity taken in the Sonthern 


as in the Northern waters. It is taken somewhat for the manufactare of 1 


oil. bat the business is not fally developed. 
Q. What other fish did you mention in the South ?—A. The mullet, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2825 


menhaden, bluefish, and striped bass to some extent, but striped bass 
is more an estuary fish coming into brackish waters, and can scarcely, 
with propriety, be mentioned in this connection. 

Q. What have you to say about the drum?—A. It is a fish that can 
be taken in almost any desired quantity. It is obtained weighing up to 
100 to 120 pounds, but it generally weighs from 10 to 20 pounds. There 
is the channel bass, which can be also taken in any desired quantities. 
It is entirely a sea fish, and is caught in the rapid channel-ways between 
the shores and islands on the coast. 

Q. Especially, perhaps, in South Carolina ?—A. Only stragglers come 
on the eastern coast, but it is found in enormous abundance from North 
Carolina down to the southern Cxipemity of Florida, and in the Gulf of 
Mexico. 

Q. Can the fish be salted for the market ?—A. I don’t think it has 
ever been tried; it is worth almost too much as fresh fish. 

Q. Is the fish called red snapper there ?—A. Yes; it is very abundant 
on the coast of Florida. It is a large fish, of a blood-red color, as red 
as goldfish, and weighs from five to twenty pounds. It is caught in 
great numbers in the winter season, and taken alive to Cuba. The Con- 
necticut fishermen, after they have finished their halibut and cod sum- 
mer and autumn fishing, go down to Florida, and spend two or three 


- months catching red snappers and other fish and taking them to Cuba, 


selling them as fresh fish, alive. It is taken in the wells of vessels, and 
is sold at very high prices in Havana. Sometimes, on the return trip, 
they take a load to New York, and sell them in that market alive. 

Q. In regard to pounds, they must be constructed in muddy ground ?— 
A. In almost any ground, except sand, because the sand shifts. 

Q. To construct a pound, you drive in piles or posts, and then make 
a straight line of net-work right up?—A. Yes. (Diagram of a pound 
exhibited.) The stakes are driven right down with a pile-driver, and 
from stake to stake is extended a wall of netting, which extends down to 
the botton and makes a barrier for the fish. They are held down by a 
chain. There is also the heart, bowl and pocket. The fish coming along 
the coast strike the wall of netting, and very naturally, in endeavoring 
to skirt it, they turn seaward and go along till they get into this recep- 
tacle either way. A fish never turns a corner, and when it gets within 
the netting it swims round and round, but never goes back again. Then 
pra it 1s led into the inner inclosure, and the same process goes 

; the fish swim round and round, but never find their way out back 

each the opening. You may leave the pound for a week, and you 
will have there all the fish that have come in, except the striped bass, 
which is the only fish you cannot cheat in a pound; and you very 
rarely take them in that way. Then when they come to haul the pounds, 
they throw a gate of netting across the openiug, and in the bowl the 
netting extends over the bottom and comes up the side. They gather 
up the end and haul it over the boat, and gradually concentrate the fish 
in a corner, and turn them or throw them over into the permanent 
pocket, where the fish are kept until ready for market. Fish are kept 
there sometimes two or three weeks or more for a demand in the market ; 
if there is a glut in the market, they may keep perhaps 1,000, 2,000 or 
3,000 fish in one of these inclosures. 

Q. How is the pocket formed ?—A. It is a net-work, fastened down to 
the bottom by a chain, so that it will touch the bottom and not permit 


_ fish to go under it. (Diagram of trap exbibited.) The trap is only used 


in the waters of Rhode Island, and is used for scup, tautog, and sea-bass. 
There are no stakes used to the trap. It is a rectangular space of net- 


2826 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ting, held at the corners by anchors. The fish go along the leaders and 
pass into the receptacle. The trap requires constant watching, or the 
fish could go in and out. The moment a school of fish enter, the net- 
ting at the end is raised. They pursue the same mode of emptying, 
and turn the fish into the pocket, as with pounds. 

Q. The difference is that in the case of pound, it is not necessary that 
boats should be employed to visit them frequently ?—A. In stormy 
weather you sometimes cannot get to a pound for a week. In the case 
of traps they are visited three or four or half a dozen times a day. 

. When the boats off shore see a school of fish enter the trap, they 
follow and take it whether large or small. [Diagram of weir exhibited. | 
This weir consists of a small circle of brush or boards, with two wings 
and aspring. The fish come into the weir at high tide, and as the water 
falls they are left in a cavity inside the weir, and are taken out in dip- 
nets. There are a dozen or twenty different forms of constructing weirs. 

Q. What is the estimated cost of a pound ?—A. $1,000 will pay for 
the construction of a very good pound, including the entire equipment. 
A pound is managed by from two to four men, while a trap requires 
two boats and about seven men. 

Q. The trap is more expensive?—A. About the same cost as the 
pound, because, although it has no stakes, yet it requires to be of very 
considerable size and needs anchors. I should presume that the first 
cost of the two would not be very different. 

Q. And what is the cost of a weir?—A. It isa simple thing. The 
cost merely represents the lumber and labor. 

Q. That is a permanent erection ?—A. Yes; the others are all taken 
up; the traps are only kept down six weeks in the year; the pounds 
are down for from two months to five, and at the end of the season they 
use an apparatus to pull the stakes out of the water, and then pack them 
on shore for next season. 

Q. What are the kinds of fish taken in the great lakes ?—A. There is 
a great variety of fish taken there, but the most important fish, as a 
matter of business, are the whitefish, lake herring, lake trout, wall-eyed 
pike, maskalonge, sturgeon, and a variety of others. The most import- 
ant, however, are whitefish, herring, and trout. 

Q. What are the methods of taking them ?—A. They are taken very 
largely by pounds, which are constructed on a very large scale, and 
much more elaborate and expensive than on the coast. They are taken 
by gill nets very largely, and by seines under certain circumstances. 
At a certain time of the year, whitefish can be taken in great quantities 
in seines, and kept in pounds until ready for market. 

@. Are those built and constructed to a great extent along both the 
Canadian and American shores¢ ~A. I presume they are used in Canada, 
though I cannot say. I know -tuey are on our own coasts. There is 
quite a number of these pounds worked by Canadians on the American 
coast. 

(. Have- you any statistics respecting the lake fishery for the years 
1876 and 1877 ?—A. I have only partial statistic. for 1877. I published 
the statistics in detail in my report for 1872, and I am now having 
Statistics for 1877 collected, and will have them 1 suppose by the end of 
the season. 

Q. 1872 represents but faintly the present state of things. Can you 
tell us how it was in 1872?—A. In 1872 the American production of fish 
in the great lakes was 32,250,000 pounds. That quantity of fish was 
taken, but how much more I cannot say. Those were marketed at 
Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, and many other stations. 


I 
| 


{ 


a - 


| 
| 
| 


| 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2827 


Q. Does that include the Canadian catch ?—A. I presume there is no 
Canadian catch in that amount. Those are the figures as they were ob- 
tained by my agents, from the fishermen and dealers. 

Q. You obtained them from the dealers in the large cities ?—A. Yes, 
and the fishermen at the grounds. This year I have had every station 
on the American side of the lakes visited and canvassed. 

Q. You have steady communication with and reports from the deal- 
ers ?—A. I have reports only when I send specially after them, as I did 
in 1872 and am doing this year. 

Q. How far have you got in your inquiry this year ?—A. I have only 
a partial return from Chicago. 

Q. What does that show ?—A. The total marketing of salted fish in 
Chicago up to the middle of October amounted to 100,000 half-barrels, 
with about 20,000 half-barrels expected for the rest of the season, or 
equal to 60,000 barrels of those fish for Chicago alone for the present 
year. The corresponding supply of barrels of fish in 1872 was 12,600 
in Chicago, so that the Chicago trade has increased from 12,600 in 1872 to 
60,000 in 1877, or almost fivefold—4 8-10. The total catch of fish in the 
lakes in 1872 was 32,250,000 pounds. If the total catch has increased in 
the same ratio as that market has done at Chicago, it will give 156,000,000 
pounds of fish taken on the American side of the lakes for the present 
year. 

Q. That, of course, cannot be a matter of certainty 7—A. No. 

Q. What other large central markets for lake fish are there besides 
Chicago ?—A. Chicago and Buffalo are the most important. Cleveland 
takes a large quantity, but Chicago and Buffalo control the market. 
Detroit takes the fish to some extent, but it is not such a convenient 
shipping point. 

Q. What proportion does that bear to the fish of Canada 7—A. I ean- 
not say. I may say, in regard to this point, that on the same ratio the 
total product of the salt fish from the lakes in the American market 
would be 48,546,000 pounds. Of course, those figures are comparisons, 
and the estimates may be fallacious. Chicago may have a larger share 
of the lake trade in proportion, or may have a smaller share; other 
places may have crowded on it, or it may have gained on them. 

Q. You expect to have full returns ?—A. I shall have them probably 
in the course of one month. I have not heard from my agent who is 
visiting all the Canadian stations and fishing points on the American 
coasts. 

Q. You expect to ascertain the whole catch of the lakes for 1877?— 
A. Yes, with great precision. I have here an item which may perhaps 
be interesting in regard to the price of those fish. The ruling prices of 
fish on the 15th October, in Chicago, were $7.50 per barrel for white- 
fish, $5.50 for salmon trout, and $3.75 for lake herring. Those are the 
prices paid to the captors for the fish by the merchants; that is, before 
they are handled and any profit put upon them. 

‘Q. In regard to the increase in the consumption of fish, are any as 
beneficial: means being adopted in Canada to maintain the supply ?—A. 
Both Canada and the States bordering on the great lakes have striven 
very efficiently to prevent what would otherwise have been a great 
danger to the supply of an enormous amount of fish. They are hateh- 
ing white-fish by artificial means to the extent of a great many millions 
annually. The two countries aré not co-operating but concurring in this 
_ business, and probably this year they may introduce as many as 20, 30, 
or more millions of young fish into the waters, and that must necessarily 
have avery important influence on the maintenance of the fisheries. 


, a. : 
4 -— 


2828 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


They have not done anything yet in regard to lake herring, but white- 
fish, which is a much more valuable fish, is being carefully guarded. 

Q. What States of the American Union are engaged in the breeding 
of whitefish ?—A. Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 

Q. What has been the success generally of the fish-breeding system 
by artificial means ?—A. It is now being practiced to such an extent in 
Canada and the United States as to show it is a very efficient mode of 
preventing the diminution of fish, and even of increasing the supply. It 
has passed the region of experiment, and it is a positive fact as shown 
by the large appropriations made on both sides of the border for this 
purpose. It commands the respect and consideration of men of all part- 
ies, and in our own country, at least, there is no difficulty in getting all 
appropriations that can profitably be expended to secure the result. 

Q. It extends not only to the fish of the great lakes, but to river 
fish ?—A. To salmon, shad, striped bass, and alewives. 

Q. You find as the result that a much larger proportion of the eggs 
are turned into fish than when left to natural exposures and dangers ?— 
- A. Anordinary estimate in regard to shad is that under natural spawn- 
ing 995 out of 1,000 eggs perish without producing a young fish able to 
feed for itself, and that you get five young fish which reach the stage 
of ability to feed for themselves; that is, after their. fins are properly 
formed, and the fish is three-eighths of an inch in length. They have 
then passed the ordinary perils of infancy, and are able to take care of 
themselves. With artificial spawning, a fish culturist who could not 
bring out 950 of 1,000 eggs to that state would be considered as ignorant 
of his business, except some unusual circumstance that could not be 
controlled should come in to interfere. . 

Q. Can you tell the Commission how many traps and pounds there are 
in the southern part of New England, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and 
Massachusetts, at Martha’s Vineyard, and all along to Cape Cod 7—A. 
There are 22 traps on the south side of Cape Cod, in the bays and basins 
about Chatham, 9 in Vineyard Sound, 30 at Buzzard’s Bay, 3 at Block 
Island, 30 in Narraganset Bay. This year there have been 94 traps 
and pounds on the southern coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, 
exclusive of Connecticut. I have not the figures for Connecticut here. 
This number represents the traps and pounds from Narraganset Bay 
to the eastern end of Cape Cod. 

Q. Have they been increasing ?—A. Yes; they are ve:y measurably 
greater in number than they were when I made my first census. 

Q. Can you state the number of men who are employed on those 
traps ?—A. The number of men required to man the traps is 436, the 
traps requiring seven men each, taking 301. 

Q. Your agent would know each of those traps?—A. I have the name 
of the owner, and the catch of the greater portion of them. 

Q. Can you tell the Commission the catch of those traps and pounds? 
—A. I have here a table of the yield of that number of pounds in 1876. 

Q. Give the result.—A. For someof the species, the figures are very 
accurate, and for others they are estimated to some extent, but this 
estimate is essentially a record of the year, so far as they have reported 
it themselves, corrected by the personal observation of. one at least of 
my men, who has taken a standard pound, and meted it every day him- 
self, and enumerated the catch and the kinds of fish. The total catch 
for 1876 included flounders, tautog, mackerel, Spanish mackerel, pom- 
peno, butter fish, squiteagle, scup, sea-bass, striped bass, bluefish, 
menblades, eels, cod, alewives, aud herring. The total catch for the 
year was 34,274,350 pounds. That is from Narragansett Bay to the 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2829 


eastern end of Cape Cod, on the south coast of Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island only. 

Q. Not the western part of Rhode Island ?—A. It includes the whole 
of Narragansett Bay. It does not include Long Island, where there are 
a great many pounds, or the most westerly part of Rhode Island. 

Q. Are all these pounds of fish capable of being used, and are used 
for food ?—A. There is a large catch of menhaden in that 15 millions. 

Q. How many miles of coast-line does that catch represent ?—A. 
About 250 miles of coasf-line. 

Q. Have you made up a calculation of the ratio of the catch per mile? 
—A. Ihave the ratio of 137,097 pounds of fish to the line or mile. 

Q. And to the men ?—A. The ratio of the catch is 78,610 to each man. 
The total value of the weir cateh at the lowest wholesale rate is $347,900 ; 
at the lowest retail rate, $1,472,438; at a mean rate between the two, 
which perhaps more exactly represents the value, $1,160,168. That, 
however, is the catch of that region only with traps and pounds; there 
is also a very large catch with hand-lines, gill-nets and seines. This is 
but for 94 weirs and traps. The aggregate catch of the entire fishery 
on the south coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts is 45,917,750 
pounds, of the mean value of $1,875,340, which gives a ratio of 133,671 
pounds per linear mile, and equivalent to $7,504 to the linear mile. The 
yield in the trap and pound fishery is over 78,610 pounds to the man, of 
a money value of $2,661, being the product of each man’s labor for an 
average not exceeding four months. That sum, to bring it to the annual 
amount, will have to be multiplied by three; each man thus would pro- 
duce $8,000 worth a year by this mode of fishing. 

Q. You do not mean to say that each man makes that amount ?—A. 
No; but that is the ratio of fish to the man. Those pounds are gener- 
ally owned by at least one of the men who run them, who sometimes 
hire what additional assistance they require; perhaps, however, in half 
of the cases the owners manage the pounds and have no division of 
profits. 

Q. Those statistics were prepared to show the amount of the fish, in- 
cluding the fresh fish as well as those salted ?—A. None of these are 
salted except such of the salted menhaden as is for food. They do not 
enter into the returns of pickled fish. These fresh fish go almost exclu- 
sively to New York, very few to Boston. 

Q. It seems strange that you should be able to know the amount of 
fresh fish that passes ‘into the. great city and what is caught every day. 
What method have you adopted to ascertain those facts 7— A. The entire 
fresh-fish trade of New York is confined to nineteen firms which form 
the Wholesale Dealers’ Association, to whose books and figures I have 
had access through and by the assistance of the large and retail dealer 
in New York, Mr. Blackford, who has taken great interest in my inves- 
tigations and is a very hearty coadjutor. He has succeeded in interest- 
ing those dealers, and 1 have just prepared a series of blanks in which 
Lhope to have the dealers record all the catches of fish every day and 
give me the returns. 

Q. You have no doubt from your relations with the dealers who con- 
trol the market that you know substantially the catch ?—A. I cannot 
say; I know the maximum catch on the coast, but [ know I have reason 
to rely upon the figures of the fish that is actually marketed and comes 


into the hands of the wholesalé men. 


Q. A large amount escapes notice ?—A. Yes; all thé local catch, the 


atch of fishermen which goes for their own benefit and is consumed on 


2830 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the spot; the catch consumed in seaport towns and villages cannot be in- 
cluded in this enumeration. 

Q. Are these caught within the treaty limits 7—A. All those fish 
which [ have mentioned are caught east of Cape May. 

Q. Northeast?—A. Yes; and all caught close to the shore, by traps or 
pounds, usually within 100 to 300 yards of the shore, or by gill-nets and 
hand-lines, used by men also from the shore. 

@. The whole fishery, with pounds and nets, that goes on from the 
shore, and with hook and line for market fish, all comes within the 
treaty limits ?—A. Yes, of course, the mullet and winter bluefish are 
south of the treaty limits; but all the fish are practically within the 
treaty limits. 

Q. And in those fisheries the Canadians have the same rights as Amer- 
icans ?—A. The Canadians have the same rights there as we have. It 
does not include the fishery, not of Cape Cod Bay and round to East- 
port. 

Q. Can you make any comparison of the corresponding ratio per mile 
or otherwise of the Canadian fisheries ?—A. I do not think I could, be- 
cause I believe the returns of the Canadian fisheries are not so large as 
they should be. Ido not believe the Canadian returns are in proportion 
to the actual catch. I therefore think a comparative statement would 
be fallacious, and I would rather not make it. 

Q. Some Canada tables have been published of the fisheries of 1876, 
including, perhaps, cod and herring ?—A. Those relate to all the fish- 
eries. This estimate I submit is for weir-fishing on a limited coast. 

Q. The Canadian returns show a total amount of $11,000,000 ?—A. I 
think the total estimate of the Canadian fisheries for 1876 is between 
$11,000,000 and $12,000,000. : 

Q. If you put that of the United States at $50,000,000, would that be 
a low or high estimate 7?—A. I think we could figure up over $40,000,000 
without any difficulty; that is, for all the fisheries. 

Q. Including the lake fisheries ?—A. Including hake, ring, and shell- 
fish. Our oyster fisheries are worth $30,000,000 a year. 

Q. That is nearly double the entire Canadian return ?—A. Perhaps. 
There are $3,000,000 worth of oysters put in cans in Baltimore yearly. 

Q. They are all included in the Canadian returns ?—A. I think so. 
Those industries with them are not so important as ours. Our off shore 
codfish, lake and river, shad, salmon, herring, lobster, crab, oyster, and 
clam fisheries are included. 

Q. Now, with reasonable legislation to limit certain methods of fishing, 
is there in your judgment any danger of the existence of the inshore, 
coast, and lake fisheries ?—A. I think that the lake fisheries would ave 
been exhausted and greatly destroyed in a comparatively limited num- 
ber of years but for the timely warning taken by Canada and the United 
States and the measures initiated in both countries for increasing the 
supply. 

Q. You yourself have been very much engaged on the subject of the 
propagation of fish ?—A. Not so much in the lakes directly as in the 
rivers. 

Q. You have shipped some of your fish by rail to California ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. I remember reading an account of one of your large collections for 
California being lodged in one of the rivers by a bridge breaking down, 
for which collection the State has never paid ?—-A. Yes, a car of live fish 
which was being sent to California. 

Q. In order to get some idea of the manipulation practiced in the breed- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2831 


ing establishments, perhaps you will state whether steam machinery is 
not now used ?—A. That is a device we have adopted this year for the 
first time in hatching shad, in which, instead of depending on the nat- 
ural current of the river usually employed, we make the trays filled with 
spawp move up and down in the water in a continuous alternation, and 
in that way hatching millions of eggs where formerly we could only hatch 
thousands. 

Q. You can state a case showing the result of one year’s experiment ?— 
A. We had eleven millions of shadin Susquebanna River in about three 
weeks in May and June. 

Q. Can you state to the Commission the result of some fish operations 
at Potomac River ?—A. The instance to which you refer is that of black 
bass. The black bass is not indigenous to the Potomac River, and none 
were init. About two years ago half a dozen adult fish were placed in 
the river, and it might now be said that the Potomac, with the excep- 
tion of St. John’s River, Florida, is the most prolific in black bass of any 
stream in the United States. Over an extent of one hundred miles, the 
fishing for black bass both for market and sport is unrivaled anywhere. 

Q. Without claiming too much for our people, are not the ingenuity 
and industry of the American people in taking fish for consumption and 
other uses on the one band, and in propagating them on the other, very 
great and very remarkable? How is that?—A. The methods of fish 
culture as practiced in the United States, and in Canada so far as they 
cover the same ground, are, we think, better than those anywhere in the 
Old World, and both countries hatch fish by millions where thousands 
are considered a large performance in Europe. The United States have 
asingle establishment in California at which more eggs are obtained 
than are gathered by all European hatcheries put together. This year 
we have taken about six million eggs, aud we have taken as many as 
eight miJlions in a year. We have an establishment now on Columbia 
River where we expect to hatch twenty millions of eggs. Three millions 
of eggs, I may say, in illustration of magnitude, would fill-a hay-field cart 
to its utmost capacity. 

Q. You have an estimate of the combined fishing of the United States 
for the year 1876, including the Bank fishing?—A. Yes. This is a table 
_ of the product of the marine fisheries of the United States east of Cape 

* May within the treaty limits. The total product of the inshore fisheries 
of that range, the fish taken by boats from the shore, that taken by 
seines, by traps, pounds, &c., amounts to 319,579,950 pounds, of a mean 
value of $4,064,484. The total fisheries of the United States, inshore and 
off shore within the limits, amount to 1,045,855,750 pounds, of the value 
of $13,030,821. This is exclusive of any of the Southern fisheries, exclu- 
Sive of the lake fishery, of the whale, porpoise, and seal fishery, and of 
the salmon, shad, and herring fishery. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 
Does it include the Grand Bank fishery and that at Georges?—A. 
es. 
By Mr. Dana: 

Q. It is exclusive entirely of the fresh-water fish of the lakes and 
rivers, shad, herring, and salmon, of the whale and fur seal, of the oys- 
ters, lobsters, and crabs. The total coast line on which the fisheries are 
pursued is 1,112 miles, from Cape May to Eastport, including the islands. 
The ratio to the mile is 940,510 pounds, the ratio of value is $11,718. 

_ _Q. Will you state how the returns are obtained ?—A. The figures in 
regard to the herring, cod, and mackerel are obtained from the reports 


2832 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the Bureau of Statistics of the United States for 1876, the other fig- 
ures are made up from a series of tables for each kind of fish. I had an 
estimate prepared of the production of each fishery, and those figures 
have been obtained partly from witnesses who have been here to testify, 
partly from the books of dealers in Gloucester, Boston, Newburyport, 
and elsewhere, partly and very largely from the returns I have gathered 
through agents I have sent out, and from circulars I have distributed. 
I have here an enumeration of all the different kinds of fish and quan- 
tity caught; it is simply a combined table from a great many sub-tables. 

Q. These tables you will put into the case ?—A. The tables were not 
made up by me, but under my direction. They are put in by the com- 
piler under an affidavit. 

Q. An examination will show they are very much in detail?—-A. These 
tables, like all those of all nations, excepting, perhaps, those of France, 
are imperfect, and are short of the true figures. I have no doubt that | 
a large percentage should be added to the tables of both nations in the | 
New World. But they are accurate as far as they go; if they err, itisin | 
the direction of deficiency, not of excess. 

Q. It is so on both sides ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You are allowed a pretty large staff of persons to assist you as 
writers ?—A. I have all the clerks and assistants I require. But a great 
many of those returns have been made to circulars. I have distributed 
through the Departments of the Treasury and Post-Office, and other 
functionaries. 

Q. In view of those vast resources of the country, and the supply of 
sea-fish of all kinds, the improved and increased methods of catching 
the fish, do you think there is any one kind of fish, the entire failure of 
which would prove a very serious matter, such, for instance, as the | 
mackerel obtained in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. I do not think | 
that the entire failure of any kind of fish would affect the supply ; but | 
this would stimulate the fishermen to renewed efforts regarding some | 
other fish. If all the mackerel disappeared, their places would be sup- | 
plied by the Southern mullet, which are more abundant than the mack- | 
erel, and which could be taken in twice the quantity, if not more. If | — 

4 
| 
| 


every mackerel was destroyed the mackerel fishermen would go down to 
the Southern coast, and take the mullet and pickle them. | 

Q. Your last statement applies only to fish caught north of Cape 
May ?—A. Yes; it does not include any Southern fisheries at all, or any 
catch of the same fish in Southern waters, such as the bluefish or the 
mackerel. 

By Mr. Foster : 

Q. Is Cape May far north of the treaty line ?—A. It is directly on the | 
treaty line; this line cuts off Cape May and runs just at the north point | 
of the coast there. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Q. So that these tables do not include the opening of Delaware | 
Bay?—A. No; but only the fisheries on the coast of New Jersey—the | 
outer coast of New Jersey—and from that northward. |i 


By Mr. Thomson: 

Q. All this evidence which you have given, with reference to the 
mullet becoming the fish of the future, is mere matter of speculation, is 
it not 7—A. It is nothing more than what I judge from the excellence of lf 

1 


this fish, the ease with which they are taken, and the ease with which 


| 
4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2833 


they are cured, and the extent to which it is practiced as a local fishery 
by the people of North Carolina and other Southern States. 

Q. Has not that fishery been known for a great many years?—A. I 
cannot say. I have only known it since 1872 and 1873. It probably 
has been known as a fishery for some years. : 

Q. Persons have eaten these mullet 20 or 30 years ago down South ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. And it has not progressed at all as food for Northern consump- 
tion?-—A. It is not now used as a food-fish in the North; but it is a fish 
which occupies the place of Northern fish through a large portion of the 
Southern States. 

Q. Do you know from definite personal knowledge of your own 
whether they would not rather have there one single salt mackerel than 
a whole barrel of mullet?—A. No, I cannot say anything about that— 
as to their preference. 

Q. I was told that this was the case no longer ago than this morning 
by a lady who has lived there; and I wanted to know what your experience 
in this respect was.—A. I must to my shame confess that I have never 
tasted a salt mullet ; but I propose, as soon as I go home, to get a barrel 
of them and [ will send some to Halifax for the Commission. I hope 
they will make up their minds to try them; I will do it the very first 
thing after I reach home, and I hope you will all try them. 

Q. Is it not a fact well known to those who are engaged in the sea- 
fisheries that Southern fish, or, in other words, fish taken in warm waters, 
are fish that will not bear transportation to Northern climates 7—A. I 
cannot say anything about that at all; but I know the only peculiarity 
about mullet is, that it is a fall and winter fishery. It is a cold-water 
fishery. It begins in September, and lasts until November and Decem- 
ber. 

Q. You say it is a cold-water fishery; but the water i$ nothing like 
as cold there as it is in our waters during the same months?—A. No; 
but the water there is about as cold in. winter—if not then quite as 


. cold—as it is here in the summer time. 


Q. Could cod, from your knowledge, live in the waters which are fre- 


_ quented by the mullet ?—A. No; neither could the mullet live in the 
. waters which are frequented by the cod. 


Q. Are not the mullet also a fat fish 7—A. Yes; they are very fat. 
(. Is not this fact also against transportation ?—A. I do not know. 


_ Tam not versed in the physics of transportation. 


Q. How long ago is it,since you first turned your attention to the 
fisheries at all?—A. I have done so since 1871. 

Q. Previous to that time your specialties lay in another direction ?— 
A. No; I have always been interested in fish as a branch of zoology 
for a great many years. I have been a specialist in icthyology, and I 
described prior to that date hundreds of new species. 

Q. Speaking about the pounds established along the New England 
shore, how many of them did you say were there ?—A. 94. : 

_Q. In answer to Mr. Dana, you stated that this kind of fishing was 


| Open under the Washington Treaty to British fishermen; do you think 


that you are quite right in stating that?—A. Yes. 
Q. Do you think that under this treaty we have a right to set down 


| pounds upon American soil?—A. You can, subject to the consent of the 


Owners of the shore—just the same as with respect to any fishery so 


| prosecuted in the Dominion. 


Q. Is it possible for any person to carry on the business of pound 
fishing, except he is a resident on the coast ?—A. I see no reason why 
178 FP 


2834 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


any one from Canada could not go to Long Island Sound or to Vineyard 
Sound, and prosecute this fishery. 

Q. Then such a person must reside there?—A. No. Very few of 
these pounds, and I think I may say that not one-half of the pound 
fishing in Buzzard’s Bay and Vineyard Sound, are prosecuted by citi- 
zens of the State. 


Q. A man must reside or remain there for the purpose of attending | 


these pounds ?—A. Yes; for two or three months in the year. 


Q. He must be a resident of the shore for two or three months in | 


order to attend to these pounds?—A. Certainly; he must be on the 
ground, as any fisherman must be when fishing, in his boat. 

Q. Practically and really this is a fishery which must be carried on | 
by persons on the spot ?7—A. Of course; all fisheries must be carried | 
on on the spot; but they need not necessarily be carried on by resi- | 
dents of that region, or by citizens of the State. Most of these fisheries — 
in Buzzard’s Bay are carried on by people who do not usually live on 
the spot. ; ve 

Q. At all events, do you seriously state that under the provisions of 
the Washington Treaty we have a right to put down pounds on the 
American shore ?—A. I think so, with the consent of the owner of the 
shore. 

Q. That is another question—A. Will you kindly read the clause of 
the Treaty of Washington in this relation? 

Q. It is as follows: 

It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured 
to the United States fishermen by the Convention between Great Britain and the 
United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, 
and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, 
the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her 
Britannic Majesty, the liberty for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of 
this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, 
and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New 
Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands there- 
unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permis- 
sion to land upon the said coasts, and shores, and islands, and also upon the Magdalen 
Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish. 

A. Yes. I do not understand that any mode of fishing is prohibited 
under this treaty, unless it is so mentioned in express terms, as is the* 
case with shad, salmon, and shell-fish. I do not understand that any 
mode of fishing is prohibited to the citizens of the opposite nation, 
except what conflicts with the local law of the country. 

Q. Can these pounds be put down without landing to make prepara- 
tion for that purpose ?—A. Yes, perfectly well. It is not absolutely 
necessary to go on shore at all to do it; indeed I know of a grees 
many pounds which do not touch the shore, but which are started 20,, 
30, or 50 yards from the shore. 

Q. Do you seriously contend that there are territorial rights given us| 
under the Washington Treaty because you recollect that the patties) 
down of poles in the soil is a territorial right?—A. Yes. 
Q. Do I seriously understand you to contend that, under this | 
rights are given either to the Americans on the one side or to the Brit 
ish on the other, as to doing anything on the shores of either country, 


except landing to cure fish ‘and dry nets ?—A. I understand that if you 
wished to start a pound in Buzzard’s Bay, you could go to Naushon 
Island, owned by John M. Forbes, an eminent citizen of the United 
States, and with his permission you can do so; and that you require no 
permission in this regard either from the State of Massachusetts or the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2835 


Government of the United States; he has precisely the same right to 
give authority to put down a pound, I think, as has Ashby, who was a 
witness here and a native of Connecticut. 

Q. That is to say that Mr. Forbes, who owns the land, could allow me 
to go and put down a pound there?—A. There is not the slightest 
question about it. 

Q. Could he not do that before this treaty was ratified ?—A. I do 
not know whether he could do so or not; I cannot say anything about 
that; that is a. legal question. 

Q. He could have given me that right previous to the treaty just as 
well as since?—A. I do not know what exact right the treaty may 
give in this relation; but that is no reason why this might not be done. 
I consider that this fishery is now perfectly open to Canadians. 

Q. Has not the mode in which the rivers on the coast of Maine have 
been treated for a number of years back depleted the waters on that 
coast or on the New England coast of cod, for instance, which you say 
was once one of the most important fish found there ?—A. The destruc. 
tion of river fish, in my opinion, has had more to do with the diminu- 
tion of inshore fish, such as cod and haddock—— 

Q. And mackerel, too?—A. No, not mackerel; this has nothing to 
do with them. Mackerel cannot be considered in that connection, be- 
cause they do not depend on the fish of those rivers for food ; but I think 
that such destruction has more than auything else to do with the de- 
erease of these fish I have mentioned, inshore; and the result of the 
measures which are now being taken by the States of Maine and Mass- 
achusetts, in restoring the river fisheries, will bring back the original 
historical abundance of the sea-fish inshore. 

Q. What this will do is as yet in the womb of the future; but at pres- 
ent are not those fisheries depleted 7—A. The boat-fisheries for cod and 
haddock are now much inferior in yield on most parts of that coast to 
what was the case 50 or 100 years ago. 

_ Q. You now allude to the coast-fisheries within the three-mile limit?— 
A. Yes; the fisheries carried on in open boats, which go out as far as a 
man can comfortably go in a day and come back again. 

Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that this system of 
treating the rivers has destroyed the food of sea-fish, and therefore that 
the bait or food is not there to induce the cod to come inshore, but that 
_ this has had no effect on the fish outside of the three-mile limit?—A. I 
cannot say how far out the effect extends, because some distance outside 
of the limits there are other fishés, such as herring and mackerel, and 
food of various kinds which they can get at. 

Q. Is it possible that the inshore fisheries can be either destroyed or 
very considerably depleted within the three-mile limit and yet leave the 
fisheries just outside of this limit as good as ever ?—A. I think so. 

Q. And undiminished ?—A. I think so, for the very reason that these 
fish naturally keep off from the shore. They are off-shore fish, and we 
find them largely inshore at certain seasons of the year because they 
then follow-the fish that are coming inshore; and if you had an enor- 
mous number of shad and alewives and salmon, and especially of ale-— 
|| Wives and shad inshore, that involves their pursuit by an enormous 
(lumber of predatory fish, such as cod and haddock and pollock, just 

tly as the same fish follow the herring and caplin on the coasts of 
Dominion and Newfoundland. 
Then I understand you to mean that, although the food which 
a fishes prey upon may be destroyed by reason of the depletion of 
Trivers, this will only affect the fishing within three miles of the shore 


> 
7 


2836 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and have no effect on the fishing beyond this limit ?—A. I cannot say 
how far it will have effect. 

Q. Will this effect stop short of the three-mile limit ?—A. I think 
there are a great many concurrent agencies which affect the fish supply 
at different seasons on the different parts of the coast, and that while 
the inshore fishing of herring and shad, or other incoming fish, regulates 
that to some extent, it does not cover the whole ground. 

Q. I want a direct answer: are you able to state that the destruction 
of bait, by reason of the bad treatment of these rivers, cnly affects the 
fishing along the coast to the extent of three miles from it?—A. I can- 
not say that; I cannot say how far sach effect extends, and nobody can 
do so. 


Q. It is reasonable to suppose that it extends for a considerable dis- | 


tance farther than three miles from the coast ?—A. That I cannot say. | 

Q. Would this not more likely drive the fish to other coasts where © 
the rivers are not so treated ?—A. Fish certainly have to go where they 
can get food, and’ if they cannot procure it on one spot they have to go | 
to some other spot for it. | 

Q. Is it not probable that they will go where the rivers are not so_ 
badly treated ?—A. This depends on how far cod and haddock will 
migrate, under any circumstances. If they leave the shore, but can find 
an ample supply of food on Georges Bank or on Nantucket Shoals, they 
will probably stay there. 

Q. Do cod migrate at all? Is this known for a certainty to be the 
case ?—A. It is not certain that they have such migrations as we ascribe 
to the bluefish and mackerel; whether they traverse a mile of sea-bot- 
tom in search of food, or whether they go 100 miles for it, under any 
circumstances, I cannot say. 

Q. I understood you to say yesterday that you could not trace their 
migrations at all?—A. No, I cannot. 

Q. And you do not pretend to say that they do migrate? I rather 
understood you to say also that mackerel do not migrate?—A. They 
inigrate, but they do not sweep along the coast—at least I do not think 
they do so, as was formerly supposed, for very many miles; but rather 
come direct from their winter grounds inshore. 


Q. I understood you to say, your theory at present was that there was, | 


a vast body of mackerel which, forming one wing of their army, passed 
along the American coast; and that another wing directed their course 
into the gulf?—A. Yes. 


Q. I see that in the Answer of the United States, page 10, the follow- | 
| 


ing language is used: i 


The migration of mackerel in the spring begins on the Atlantic coast from a point | 
as far south asCape Hatteras. The first-comers reach Provincetown, Mass., about May 
10. Here they begin to scatter, and they are found during the entire season along the 
New England coast. 

‘‘ Whatever may be the theories of others on the subject,” says Professor Baird, “ the | 
American mackerel fisher knows perfectly well that in spring, about May, he will find | 
the schools of mackerel off Cape Hatteras, and that he can follow them northward, 
day by day, as they move in countless myriads on to the coast of Maine, of Nova Scotia, | 
and into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They may be occasionally lost sight of by thelt | 
sinking below the surface; but they are sure to present themselves, shortly after, tc) 
those who look for them farther north and east.” 


‘ 

Do you now adhere to that statement ?—A. I think that was not the 

most philosophical expression on that subject. My views in regard to the 

proper theory concerning mackerel have been modified since then, to 

the extent I have alleged. 1] 
Q. In fact, if I correctly understood you yesterday, you rather inclined’ 


<a. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2837 


to the theory which has been started here, that mackerel are not a 
migratory fish at all, but hybernate in the mud ?—A. I cannot precisely 
say; but the evidence is quite strong in favor of hybernation of some 
‘kind, though I do not consider the case proven in this respect ; at the 
same time I do not consider it philosophical to refuse to countenance its 
possibility. 

Q. Will you tell me how, if possible, it could be otherwise, if it is true 
that the mackerel have, in the spring, scales over their eyes, as has 
been described by witnesses here, and, as I understand, you admit.—A. 
I cannot say that this is the case; I have never seen it. 

Q. If these scales are on their eyes they could not possibly do other- 
wise than hibernate ?—A. I cannot say that; I am not a mackerel, and 
I could not tell what they do or what they do not do. 

Q. Is it certain that any fish, that you are aware of, hibernate in the 
mud ?—A. That is not certain, but it is believed to be the case. 

Q. Do you know of any fish which certainly does hibernate ?7—A. 
The eel does. 

Q. Is its eyes protected against the mud by scales ?—A. This is not 
the case so far as I know. It has not been noted or reported. 

Q. How has it become a theory if it has never been noted? Is it the 
want of experience with reference to mackerel that you do not know 
whether scales are found over its eyes or not?—A. I have never caught 
mackerel in the critical period of the year when they are said to have 
scales over their eyes; but a specimen which I have preserved in alco- 
hol did have scales over its eyes, though the action of the alcohol on 
the cornea of the eye always tends to make it opaque and destroys its 
transparency. 

Q. Is there any period of the year when mackerel must be prevented 
from seeing, as far as you can judge from the specimen which you pos- 
sess ?—A. No; I cannot say that. 

Q. What are these scales for?—A. I cannot say. The theory of the 
fishermen, however, is that it is to curb the roving habits of the mack- 
erel, and make it more ready to stay in the mud; and that otherwise 
they would not want to stay there; that is the hypothesis of the fisher- 
men, and I give it for what it is worth. 

- Q. You do not assent to it?—A. No; it is not proven to be true. 

Q. And it is not disproven’?—A. All that is proven in this respect is, 
that in winter we do not see the mackerel; they do not then school on 
the surface, nor do they go to the West Indies, or to Bermuda, or to 
Florida; nor do they then appear on the surface anywhere as far as the 
testimony has gone. : 

Q. With reference’ to the inshore fisheries in the State of Maine, and 
in the States of New England, generally, are they depleted or not?—A. 
The boat-fisheries there are not what they were 50 or 100 years ago; 
that, I think, I am perfectly safe in saying; but whether there has been 
any decrease in them during the past few years I cannot say. 

Q. I now quote from your own report, part second, for the years 1872 
and 1873, page xi; it is headed ‘Conclusions as to decrease of cod-fish- 
eries on the New England coast,” and it states: 

Of all the various fisheries formerly prosecuted directly off the coast of New Eng- 
land, north of Cape Cod, the depreciation in that of the cod appears to be of the 
greatest economical importance. Formerly the waters abounded in this fish to such 
an extent that a large supply could be taken throughout almost the entire year along 

© Banks, especially in the vicinity of the mouths of the large rivers. At that time 
the tidal streams were almost choked up with the alewives, shad, and salmon that 


Were struggling for entrance in the spring, and which filled the adjacent waters 
throughout a great part of the year. 


- 2 

~ sta x 
7 : 

if _= 


2838 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


As is well known, the erection of impassable dams across the streams, by preventing 
the ascent of the species just mentioned to their spawning-grounds, produced a very great 
diminution, and almost the extermination, of their numbers, so that whereas in former 
years a large trade could be carried on during the proper season, now nothing would 
be gained by the effort. ; 

On page xii you say this: 

It would, therefore, appear that while the river-fisheries have been depreciated or 
destroyed by means of dams or by exhaustive fishing, the codfish have disappeared in 
equal ratio. This is not, however, for the same reason, as they are taken only with 
the line, at a rate more than compensated by the natural fecundity of the fish. Iam 
well satisfied, however, that there is a relation of cause and effect between the present 
and past condition of the two series of fish; and in this I am supported by the opinion 
of Capt. U.S. Treat, of Eastport, by whom, indeed, the idea was first suggested to me. 
Captain Treat is a successful fisherman, and dealer in fish on a very large scale, and 
at the same time a gentleman of very great intelligence and knowledge of the many - 
details connected with the natural history of our coast-fishes, and in this respect 
worthily representing Captain Atwood, of Provincetown. It is to Captain Treat that 
we owe many experiments on the reproduction of alewives in ponds, and the possi- 
bility of keeping salmon in fresh waters for a period of years. The general conclu- 
sions which have been reached, as the result of repeated conversations with Captain 
Treat and other fishermen on the coast, incline me to believe that the reduction in the 


cod and other fisheries, so as to become practically a failure, is due to the decrease off | 


our coast in the quantity, primarily, of alewives, and secondarily of shad and salmon, 
more than to any other cause. 

It is well known by the old residents of Eastport that from thirty to fifty years ago 
cod could be taken in abundance in Passamaquoddy Bay and off Eastport, where only 
stragglers are now to be caught. The same is the case at the mouth of the Penobscot 
River and at other points along the coast, where once the fish came close in to the shore, 
and were readily captured with the hook throughout the greater part of the year. 


A. Yes. 

Q. Do you dissent now from that opinion ?—A. No; I used that as 
an impressive lesson to the State legislature to induce them to pass the 
measures necessary to restore these river fisheries, which they are now 
doing very rapidily. 

Q. Where is Capt. U.S. Treat, of Eastport, now ?—A. In Japan, 
teaching the Japanese how to catch and cure fish. 

Q. On page xiv of this Report you say: 

Whatever may be the importance of increasing the supply of salmon, it is trifling 
compared with the restoration of our exhausted cod-fisheries; and should these be 
brought back to their original condition, we shall find within a short time an in- 
crease of wealth on our shores, the amount of which it would be difficult to calculates 
Not only would the general prosperity of the adjacent States be enhanced, but in the 
increased number of vessels built, in the large number of men induced to devote them- 
selves to maritime pursuits, and in the general stimulus to everything connected with 
the business of the sea-faring profession, we should be recovering, in a great measure, 
from that loss which has been the source of so much lamentation to political econo- 
mists and well-wishers of the country. 


That you still adhere to?—A. Certainly. I made that report as im- 
pressive as I could in order to produce the effect desired, which was to 
cause the legislature to pass a law in this regard, and it has had that 
effect. They have passed such laws, and I hope that this evil will be 
remedied in a reasonable number of years. 

Q. It is not remedied yet?—A. No. 

Q. It takes a number of years to do that ?—A. I can give an instance 
where it has had such effect, if you like to have it. In Massachusetts 
the most has been done for the restoration of alewives and shad in the 
Merrimack River; and the shore fisheries there have now increased in a « 
very marked degree. At the present time it is perfectly possible for a 
man to go out in a boat from the city of Newburyport and catch 4,000 
pounds of codfish and bring them back the same night. This is the only 
river in Massachusetts in which very great efforts have been made to 
restore these river fisheries ; and it is now possible to capture these fish 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2839 


in much greater quantities than was the case 10 years ago; and this I 
ascribe to the action of the State government with regard to the res- 
toration of river fish. 

Q. How many pounds did you mention ?—A. 4,000. 

Q. Caught by a single man ?—A. Two men will do it; a man with a 
trawl and an assistant will go out in an open boat in the morning from 
the city of Newburyport and come back at night, or go out at night and 
return in the morning, and in the mean time take 4,000 pounds of cod. 
That is the only point along there at which, at that distance from the 
shore, I know that it is possible to catch cod in such numbers. 

Q. Must not a great lapse of time, or at least a very considerable 
lapse of time occur, before the fisheries destroyed, as you have here de- 
scribed, can be restored by the process you speak of 7—A. I think that 
this depends on the amount of time necessary for the restoration of the 
fish, which run out to sea from the rivers. I think that if this year 
there are no such fish as alewives, &c., to run into these rivers, and 
that if next year a great army was to so run in, concurrent with that 
army, an army of cod and other fish would be there to prey upon them. 

Q. I see that in your Report for 1872 and 1873, referring to the lake 
fish, you say on page ]xxxi: 

The restoration of food-fishes to localities originally tenanted by them, or their 
transfer to new waters, is, however, a question of time; and in the immense extent of 
our river and lake systems, many years must necessarily elapse before the work can 
be accomplished. 

A. That is a great number of years, certainly ; but that does not so 
much refer to any particular river as to the aggregate rivers and lakes 

-seattered over the whole body of the United States. 

Q. You say here that ‘““many years must necessarily elapse” 7—A. 
Certainly. 

Q. When did you commence this work 7—A. The actual process of 

. artificial propagation began, under my direction, in 1872. 
- Q. Do you refer to any term of years? I suppose that you mean a 
| period of 10, 12, or 14 years.—A. It might be more. The time of 
| eourse depends on the expenditure involved, and the concurrence of 
| suitable legislation to protect the fish, and many other points. 
| «+ Q. How many fish-breeding establishments have you in the States ?— 
| A. Nearly every State in the Union has now a series of fish commis- 
|| sioners, whose business it is to propagate fish within their borders. 
| Q. There is only one in each State?—A. There is one State establish- 
|| Ievt ; and a certain number of private establishments in each, founded 
| for the purpose of gain. ° 
| Q. Do you know how many there are in Canada ?—A. I know there 
|| ave a great many. Canada is doing most admirably in this respect. 
| Q. And very much more in proportion than the United States ?—A. 
| No; I think not: I think by far less in proportion. 
| Q. In proportion ?—A. Yes. 
' - Q. To population?—A. I do not say according to population. I shall 
qualify that statement by saying that what is done in Canada is done 
on a much less scale of magnitude than is the case in the United States. 
_ Imean that the aggregate of artificial propagation in the United States 
| is much greater than the aggregate in Canada; but I would not take a 
ratio. I think that both Canada and the United States are doing as 
much as they can in this regard, in the time that has been allowed for 
‘purpose. 
~ Q. I suppose that Canada is doing a very large work in this connec- 
tion ?—A. She is doing most admirably—yes. 


2840 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. She is expending large sums of money on it?—A. Certainly. She 
is doing most admirably. I am very happy to say that Canada and the 
United States are working concurrently in a great many directions in 
the line of artificial fish culture. 

Q. Do you know the Canadian establishment on Detroit River?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Is it doing a large business?—A. I don’t know what it is doing 
this year; but last year I understand that it did a very large business. 

Q. It then hatched 10,000,000 eggs ?—A. Yes, very likely. 

(. You say that cod cannot live except in cold water?—A. The cod is an 
inhabitant of the colder waters. 

Q. Are you aware whether or not the Gulf Stream during the sum- 
mer months swings in at all more toward the American coast ?—A. It 
does. 

Q. For how many miles?—A. I cannot say. 

Q. Would that have any effect in driving the cod away from the 
American shores?—A. No; not the slightest. 

Q. You think not?—A. Yes; it has not the slightest effect on them. 
If you go down to a certain depth in the ocean, in the tropics or any- 
where else, you will find the water cold enough for cod; and there is 
nothing to prevent the cod being as abundant in tropical waters—say 
off Brazil or the West Indies—as anywhere else; as far as temperature 
is concerned, it is cold enough there for them at a certain depth. 

Q. Have they ever been caught there?—A. Not that I know of; but 
the water there is cold enough for them. 

Q. Is it not very venturesome to state that there is nothing to prevent 
them staying there?—A. They may be there, but they have not been 
caught there. Nobody has fished at those great depths, for you have 
got to go down from 6,000 to 15,000 and 20,000 feet to find that tempera- 
ture in tropical seas. 

Q. Have you the slightest idea as to what sort of animals reside down 
there?—A. Yes. We have a very good knowledge of such species as 
can be taken up by the trawling line and dredge from those depths; and 
Me know that an ample supply of food suitable for cod is to be found 
there. 

Q. Has any beam-trawl or dredge ever taken cod in those regions?— 
A. No; you do not catch cod with small trawls any more than you can 
so catch whales. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. Would not the temperature in those waters interfere with the 
spawn of the cod, as this spawn floats ?—A. I think that the water there 
might be too warm for the development of codfish eggs in the abstract; 
but the effect would be to make them hatch out more rapidly than would 


be the case in cold water. Of course it is a very serious question to | 


decide whether, with the present constitution of the cod, its eggs would 
develop in warm water, though whether it might not evolute and develop 
into a warm-water cod I do not know. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. On page 60 of your Report for 1872 and 1873, you use the follow- 
ing language: 


It is in another still more important connection that we should consiler the alewife. 
It is well known that within the last thirty or forty years the fisheries of cod, haddock, and 
hake along our coasts have measurably diminished, and in some places ceased entirely. 
Enough may be taken for local consumption, but localities which formerly furnished 
the material for an extensive commerce in dried fish have been entirely abandoned. 


1} 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2841 


Various causes have been assigned for this condition of things, and, among others, the 
alleged diminution of thesea-herring. After a careful consideration of the subject, how- 
ever, I am strongly inclined to believe that it is due to the diminution, and, in many 
instances, to the extermination of the alewives. As already remarked, before the con- 
struction of dams in the tidal rivers the alewife was found in incredible numbers along 
our coast, probably remaining not far from shore, excepting when moving up into 
the fresh water, and, at any rate, spending a considerable interval off the mouths of 
the rivers either at the time of their journey upward or on their return, The young, 
too, after returning from the ocean, usually swarmed in the same localities, and thus 
furnished for the larger species a bait such as is not supplied at present by any other 
fish, the sea-herring not excepted. We know that the alewife is particularly attract- 
ive as a bait to other fishes, especially for cod and mackerel. 


A. Do I say mackerel ? 

Q. Yes.—A. That is an inadvertence. I do not think that the ale- 
wife is a bait for mackerel. 

Q. You say: 


We know that the alewife is particularly attractive as a bait to other fishes, espe- 
cially for cod and mackerel. 


A. Well, I should not have said that. 

Q. The alewives are the same as the fish we call gaspereaux ian New 
Brunswick 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You further say: , 

Alewives enter the streams on the south coast of New England before the arrival of 
the bluefish; but the latter devote themselves with great assiduity to the capture of 
the byoang as they come out from their breeding-ponds. The outlet of an alewife pond 
is always a capital place for the blue-fish, and as they come very near the shore 
in such localities, they can be caught there with the line by what is called “ heaving 
and hauling,” or throwing a squid from the shore, and hauling it in with the utmost 
rapidity. 

he coincidence, at least, in the erection of the dams, and the enormous diminution 
in the number of the alewives, and the decadence of the inshore cod-fishery, is cer- 
tainly very remarkable. It is probable, also, that the mackerel fisheries have suf- 
peed in the same way, as these fish find in the young menhaden and alewives an attract- 
ive bait. 


You see you say that twice.—A. That is an inadvertence. 
Q. You say: 


It is probable also that the mackerel fisheries have suffered in the same way, as these 
fish find in the young menhaden and alewives an attractive bait. 


’ A. This is the case on the northern coast probably. 

Q. It is hardly an inadvertence ?—A. It is an inadvertence. Itisa 
conclusion that is not justified by the fact. 

Q. Then you dissent from that opinion now?—A. Yes; I do not con- 
sider that it has a bearing on the mackerel question. 

Q. All that goes to show that all these speculative opinions are euti- 


tled to little weight; you see that you have changed your opinion in 


this respect ?—A. Certainly ; as the data vary the conclusions also vary. 
Q. I suppose you will admit that there is not the slightest reason why 
within the next three years you may not have come back to the same 
opinion which you now repudiate, or have then formed opinions totally 
different from those which you now express before the Commission ?— 
A. I cannot say ; that will depend entirely on the facts as they come. 
_ Q. After all, this is all the purest theory 7?—A. It is an hypothesis ; it 
is not a theory. 
Q,. Well, it is an hypothesis ?—A. It is not a theory until it is abso- 
lutely certified by the facts. 
_ Q. Then, of course, an hypothesis is more vague than a theory. You 


| gave in a mass‘of figures just now, which you state were made up by 


your assistant, based upon information which you have got from some 


2842 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the witnesses here, in answer to questions put them, and what not— 
have I understood you rightly 7—A. Partly. 

Q. And your assistant has verified them by his affidavit—have I under- 
stood you rightly ?—A. Yes; they are verified by the affidavit of the 
assistant who made them up. 

Q. What sort of an affidavit is it? Does he state that cee figures 
are correct, or simply that they are there 7—A. He certifies that he has 
compiled them, and what they represent. 

(For this affidavit see No. 3, Appendix O.) 

@. In point of fact you cannot yourself swear that this statement is 
correct ?—A. I cannot swear that; but it is made up from the statistics 
of the Fishery Commission and investigations. 

Q. Even to that I do not think you can swear?—A. No more than 
Mr. Whitcher or Mr. Smith can swear to the correctness of Canadian 
statistics. 

Q. You directed it to be made up by one of your assistants?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you do not know whether it has been made up correctly or 
not?—A. No more than any man can swear to the accuracy of his assist- 
ant’s work. 

Q. As a fact, you have no personal knowledge as to its correctness ?— 
A. Certainly not. 

Q. You directed it to be done ?—A. Precisely ; it stands on the same 
footing as any table made up by a clerk. 

Q. Did you directly take into consideration statements made by wit- 
nesses here ?—A. I have very largely taken into consideration inquiries 
made by Mr. Goode, my assistant, of witnesses here, according to the 
same definite plan which I have adopted elsewhere. 

Q. Inasmuch as we have not the results of what these inquiries were, 
and since the Commissioners have not them before them, none of these 
inquiries which you made, and none of the information which you thus 
obtained, are before us, the papers being locked up in your desk.—A. 
They are all in the archives of the Fishery Commission. 

Q. Then we have no means of testing the accuracy of those figures ?— 
A. No; not the slightest. They are there for what they are worth. I 
present them with the affidavit which was made by my assistant. 

@. You admit that you have not furnished us with any means of at- 
testing their accuracy ?—A. You must take them for what they are 
worth. They are of the same value as any table published by the Fish- 
ery Department of Canada or the United ‘States or anywhere else. 

Q.. tf 1 rightly understood your answer to Mr. Dana yesterday, you 
rather think that the throwing over of offal amounts to nothing 1—Aa 
No; I do not think that it does amount to anything. : 

Q. I thought you gave a rather interesting description of sea-fleas.— 
A. I merely say that it is a question whether it is or was injurious to 
the food of fishes on the coast, as has been maintained. It is a question 
as to which we have no definite proof that it injures the fishes; and I 
am inclined to believe that it has more of a local and immediate effect 
on the fish than it does injury to the fish. 

@. Would it not necessarily injure the spawn in its neighborhood?— 
A. No. 

Q. You think not ?—A. No. 

Q. Not if thrown over on the top of spawn ?—A. No; you might 
throw it over all day long and try to injure a load of floating spawn and 
you could not do it. Nobody has ever suggested that gurry affects the 
spawn. By spawn I suppose you mean eggs. 

@. Yes.—A. No; nothing of the kind is to be thought of. - 


—~ = 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2843 


Q. You quoted yesterday Mr. Whiteaves’s Report ; he says on page 11: 


In case Americans are allowed to fish in Canadian waters, the custom (said to be 
ticed by them) of splitting the fish caught at sea, and throwing the offal overboard, 
on the fishing ground, should not be permitted. 

A. Ido not think that I quoted Mr. Whiteaves on that point, but 
with regard to the spawning-time of mackerel in the bay. 

Q. In your Report of 1872 and 1873, Mr. Milner is your assistant 7— 
A. Yes. 

Q. On page 19 I find this language used : 

THROWING OFFAL ON THE FISHING-GROUNDS.—It is the uniform testimony of all 
fishermen that throwing offal or dead fish in the vicinity of the fishing-grounds is offen~ 
sive to the whitefish, and drives him away. The whitefish is peculiarly cleanly in its 
instincts, and has an aversion for muddy or foul water of any description. Most fisher- 
men regard their own interest sufficiently to be careful in this particular, while many 
careless and shiftless men injure themselves and others by dumping offal and dead fish 
anywhere in the Jake where they find it convenient, reducing the catch in the vicinity 
for several months. 


A. Yes. 
Q. It is also stated : 


Unsalable fishes are generally thrown overboard in the vicinity of the nets- 


You do not dissent from that opinion ?—A. No; not at all. The 
cases, however, are totally different. There are no scavengers in fresh 
water as there are in the sea; there are no sea-fleas, or sculpin, or lob- 
sters, or anything of the kind, to clean up offal in fresh water, as is the 
ease in the ocean. 

Q. In your opinion, are purse-seiners proper or improper agents for 
taking fish ?—A. I have not formed any opinion on the subject; but I 
am inclined to think, however, that this is not a destructive mode of 
fishing. They destroy a good many fish, but I do not think that they 
diminish the absolute number of fish in the sea. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: : 


Q. Will you repeat that ?—A. I say I do not think that they affect 
the total number of the fish in the sea materially, although they destroy 


| and waste a great many fish. If you will permit me I would state my 


reason for this view; it is this: Every school of mackerel has a large 
body of predatory fish attendant upon it, such as dogfish, sharks, and 
other species, which are bound to have so many fish a day. They will 
eat their one, two, or three fish a day, and if they cannot get them dead 
they will eat them alive; therefore, if a large body of young mackerel 
is thrown out of these purse-seines, besides mackerel which are rejected 
and worthless, the predatory fish that are attendant upon the mackerel 
will eat these dead fish, and if they do not find them dead they will 
take them alive; so it does not affect the number of fish in the sea. 
By Mr. Thomson : 

Q. Are you positive about that; do you undertake to say that the 
predaceous fishes will, in preference to capturing live fish, which they 
ae cealy do, be content with dead ones?— A. I think that is very 

ely. x 

Q. There, there—you say “ very likely” ?—A. I cannot say. I am 


‘ not a predacious fish; but 1 would prefer a live fish. 1am pretty sure, 


however, that these fish are quite ready to be saved the trouble of taking 

ir prey. It is on precisely the same principle that bait-fish, such as 
¢aplin and herring, are placed on hooks and cast overboard to eatch the 
Same fish, which follow and eat them in the natural way. I think this 
may be inferred from that. 


Pins ; 
oo _ De 


2844 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You have something to do with the Annual Record of Science and 
Industry, I believe ?—A. Something—yes. 

Q. Do you agree with the language used in an article contained on 
page 473 of this journal for 1872?—A. I did not write that, but I pub- 
lished it. 

Q. Have you in any article stated that you dissent from it ?—A. No. 
It is not my business to do so. That article merely reflects the opinion 
of the writer. I would be very sorry to believe one-half of what I pub- 
lish in that periodical; butit expresses the progress of belief and science, 
and I take it accordingly. 

. Q. It is a matter of speculation whether dead fish are eaten, as you 
say, by predaceous fishes; this is mere theory ?—A. I have no doubt that 
they are so eaten. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. You have stated that the largest quaniiy of codfish taken in the 
shortest possible time was in the vicinity of the Loffoden Islands ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. You said that something like 25 millions were taken by 12,000 
people?—A. Yes. 

Q. In a very short time—in the course of three months ?—A. Yes; 
and in a very small space. 

Q. Where did you get your statistics from 7?—A. From a report of the 
Norwegian Government. 

Q. For what year ?—A. 1868, I think. 

Q. Whose report was it ?—A. It is an extremely hard jaw-breaking 
title; it is an abstract, prepared by Hermann Baars, of Bergen, Norway. 
It was an article prepared by him for presentation at the Paris Exhibi- 
tion. 

Q. You have not seen reports published since that time ?—A. O, yes; 
Ihave them much later. 

Q. Did these later statistics correspond with the former as regards 
the quantity ?—A. I know that the capture of cod in Loffoden Islands, in 
1876, amounted to 21 or 22 millions; I have the figures here. 

Q. Are you aware what quantity of codfish is caught on the coast of 
Newfoundland ?—A. No. I have been earnestly trying to get the sta- 
tistics of Newfoundland in this respect, but I have not been able to ob- 
tain them as yet. I hope you will send them to me. 

Q. You are not aware whether it is an inshore or deep-sea fishery on 
that island?—A. No. I know nothing about it. 

Q. You say that fish are dried and used as food for cattle in these 
islands and in Norway ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What sort of cattle use it?—-A. Horses, oxen, and cows; they eat 
it with great avidity. 

@. What. portion do they make use of ?—A. Any part, but more gen- 
erally the heads, which are offal; they make most admirable nutriment. 


Q. You say that a great many nations dress very largely in the skins | 


of cod and salmon 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Will you kindly tell me what nations these are ?—A. They are 
Tchuktchi, the Aleutian Islanders, the Norton Sound Esquimaux, other 
natives of Alaska, and a few others. 


Q. You say further that the most extensive resorts of cod are the § 


Grand Banks and George’s Bank; can you tell me the quantity of fish 
taken on these banks 7—A. No; I have not made any investigation or 
tabulation in this regard. 

Q. Then you really base that opinion upon no data ?—A. I merely 
base it on my general impression on that subject. I merely speak of 


y ose * 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2845 


these as being the most prominent particular banks and localities which 
the cod frequent. In speaking of the islands and other places in this 
connection, [ mentioned banks off the coast of Labrador, but I did not 
refer to the great sweep of northern waters where the cod is found dif- 
fused. I referred more particularly to the places that are known and 
publicly mentioned. What is not published in this regard I know noth- 
ing about. 

Q. With reference to Labrador, can you answer whether the fish are 
taken inshore—that is, within the three-mile range, or on the Banks off- 
shore ?—A. I am told, but I cannot say with what certainty, that at 
certain seasons of the year the cod are there taken in great quantities 
inshore from boats, but that tbe great bodies of the fish are on the Banks 
at some distance from the shore. 

Q. Are these Banks fished ?—A. That I cannot tell. 

Q. Where are these Banks?—.A. As far as I can learn, they extend 
at a distance of some 15 or 25 miles, perhaps, along almost the entire 


length of the coast of Labrador. 


Q. Will you pledge yourself to that statement ?—A. No; I know noth- 
ing about it. 

Q. From whom did you get this information 7—A. From the published 
writings of Professor Hind. 

Q. I think he indicates in these writings the exact position of these 
Banks ?—A. I think that probably he does. I may have located them 
too near or too far from the shore. I speak merely in general terms. 

Q. I think that his report only indicates the existence of banks on 
certain portions of the coast of Labrador?—A. Perhaps I may have 
made them too extensive. 

@. You have referred to a bank on which codfish are taken, off Cape 
Cod, about 20 miles, I think, in length; can you give me any informa- 
tion as regards the annual product of this bank ?—A. I think you will 
find that given in Captain Atwood’s testimony. 

Q. Can you give it?7—A. No; I know nothing of it, except from Cap- 
tain Atwood. 

Q. Is any report made in any public office in Massachusets or the 
States, from which you can gather information as regards the exact 
quantity of fish taken outside of the three-mile limit, and inside of this 
limit?—A. No. 

Q. In other words, is a report concerning the quantity of fish taken 
Within and without this limit published 1_A. No. 

Q. Is nothing published in this relation?—A. It is my business, or 
my self-imposed mission to collect that information, and I am doing so 
as fast as I can. I hope that my next report will contain a great deal 
of this and other useful information. 

Q. How many vessels are engaged in this fishery off Cape Cod 7—A. 
I cannot tell you; but I have a great deal of information on this subject 
in my records, which, however, I do not carry with me, and I do not 
trust my memory for anything. 

Q. I think you referred to the herring fishery as sane: a very great 
quantity of fish on the American coast?—A. Yes. 

Q. On the coast of the United States ?—A. Yes. 

_Q. And the coast of Massachusetts ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that yield so great as you mention, during the winter 7?—A. It 

is during both spring and fall. These fish are found all along the coast 


in the spring. 


_ Q. During what months is this the case in the spring ?—A. In Spal | 
and May. 


2846 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. And in winter?—A. I do not think that they are caught in winter 
north of Cape Cod; I do not think so; but so little is known of the 
biology and the natural history of herring that this might be the fact, and 
yet it be not known—I mean not known to the ordinary public. It was 
entirely new to me five years ago that herring spawned on the Massa- 
chusetts coast at all. 

Q. Then there is no winter herring-fishery there ?—A. The winter 
fishery is a very small one; it is carried on around Block Island and 
Narragansett Bay, but whether capabilities exist for prosecuting a win- 
ter fishery elsewhere on the coast I cannot say. 

Q. How do you account then for the fact that such a number of your 
vessels come to the southern coast of Newfoundland for herring, if they 
are so prolific on your own coast 7—A. That I cannot say. Why trade 
follows one line or direction rather than another Ido not know. They 
may not have appliances for catching them on our coast, and they may 
not have the means of taking them in such quantities as is possible at 
Newfoundland; but it is certainly a notorious fact that herring are much 
more abundant on the coast of Newfoundland than they are on the coast 
of the United States; though whether the herring that are wanted on 
the United States coast could or could not be had in the United States, 
I cannot say; but I do think that herring are vastly more abundant in 
Newfoundland and the Bay of Fundy than they are farther south. 

Q. That accounts, then, for the number of your vessels that come to 
Newfoundland for them, no doubt. Give us the number of miles of 
United States coast along which fishing rights have been conceded to 
British subjects under the Washington Treaty 7?—A. 1,112. 

Q. Can you give the extent of the Dominion coast, including that of 
Newfoundland 7?—A. Yes; the coast line of the Province of Canada is 
810 miles; of New Brunswick, 1,000 miles; of Nova Scotia, 390 miles; 
of Newfoundland, 1,650 miles; of Grand Manan, 30 miles; of Prince 
Edward Island, 285 miles; of the Magdalen Islands, 85 miles; and of 
Anticosti Island, 265 miles; the total length of the coast line of East- 
ern British North America is 4,515 miles, four times that of the United 
States east of Cape Cod. 


By Mr. Dana: . 
Q. Following the bays ?—A. Following the large bays, but omitting 
the smaller ones. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 

Q. In your statement regarding the annual product of the Dominion 
fisheries, you have not included the Newfoundland fisheries ?—A. No; 
I have only that of the Dominion of Canada. 

Q. Are you aware that something like 1,500,000 or 1,600,000 quintals 
of fish are caught in Newfoundland alone 1A. I think that is very 
probable, but I do not know. 


Q. Besides the large herring fishery ?—A. I am very anxious to know | 


exactly what the Newfoundland catch is; I have made inquiries respect- 
ing it; but I have not been able to obtain any such public data. 

(. You say that the depletion of the coddish on the coast has been 
the result of the depletion of the river fisheries on the coast of Massa- 
chusetts ?—A. I gave that as presumably one reason for it. It is prob- 
ably a very important element in the fishery. 

@. Then any act which may prove injurious to the bay fisheries on 
the coast would seriously affect the inshore fisheries by removing that 
which induced the cod to go on the coast ?—A. Yes; it would have its 
effect, 1 think. Possibly a very decided effect. 


eh CU 


Se es 


. - 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2847 


' Q. As a naturalist I would ask you to answer one or two questions. 
What do you mean by the term “fish”? Can you give us a definition?— 
A. Well, a fish is a cold-blooded vertebrate, having a particular mode 
of respiration. It breathes through gills instead of lungs, and it has a 
heart of a particular construction. 

Q. I will read the definition from a book published in New York by 
Harper Brothers, the Encylopedia of Commerce, edited by 
I presume that is an authority that can be relied upon (reads 
definition). I suppose that is a definition that can be relied upon ?—A. 
No; I think it cannat be relied upon at all. That would make anything 
that floats in the water a fish. So that the seal would be a fish aud the 
otter would be a fish. 

Q. This is the Encyclopedia of Commerce. I suppose it is reliable. 
I mean as an encyclopedia of commerce?—A. Well, I don’t know. I 
don’t think it is quoted very much. It is probably a very good compi- 
lation. There are a great many books of that class that one has occasion 
to look at without feeling that they are perfectly accurate. 

Q. Do you consider the seal a fish?—A. Not at all. 

Q. Why?—A. Because it is a warm-blooded mammal. It breathes 
by means of lungs, Se. 

Q. Is not the whale the same?—A. The whale i is no more a fish than 
the seal. 

Q. It is a mammal; it is a swimmer?—A. If you were to fall over- 
board in mid-ocean you would be a swimmer. 

Q. How is it with the walrus ?—A, It is a mammal, not a fish. 

Q. So is the whale, is it not ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How do you draw a distinction between the whale and the seal; 
the one you consider a fish and the other not ?—A. I don’t consider the 
seal a fish. 

Q. I thought you did. Now, don’t you consider it a very unreasonable 
action on the part of the United States, the refusal to admit seal-oil as 
fish-oil. Perhaps you don’t care to answer?—A. I don’t object to 
answer. I am not a politician. I am perfectly willing to answer the 
question. I know that the penguin is considered a fish, commercially— 
that is, that penguin-oil is received in England as fish-oil. 

Q. That is a very important matter. I should like very much to have 
it taken down that, as a commercial oil, the penguin-oil is considered a 
fish-oil?—A. It is in London. 

Q. Is it not in the United States?—A. No; but as far as I am 
informed the oil is classified in the London custom-house and trade 
returns as a fish-oil. 

Q. What is the quintal in weight?—A. 112 pounds in some localities, 
and in some 100 pounds. 

Q. It was given here as 114 pounds?—A. Well, it might be 114 
pounds. It is simply my impression that the quintal is considered 112 
pounds. I would not be positive. A practical fish-dealer would give 
more positive information than I could. 

‘ By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Here, on the 148th page of British Testimony we have a letter 
from Governor Hill to the Karl of Kimberly, taken from the journals 
of the legislative council in Newfoundland. It appears here, in the 
evidence of Judge Bennett, as follows: 


< 


GOVERNMENT HOUvsg, 
Newfoundland, July 4, 1871. 
My Lorp: I have the honor to inform your lordship that on the 1st 
instant I sent a telegram to cor lordship, as follows, viz: ‘In reference 


“ 


2848 - AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to terms of Washington Treaty, it is understood that fish-oil includes 
seal-oil. Explanation will oblige this government.” And on the 3d 
instant received the following reply, viz: “I am of opinion that fish-oil 
does not include seal-oil— EARL KIMBERLY.” 
I have, &c., 
STEPHEN J. HILL. 
The Right Honorable the EARL OF KIMBERLEY, 
&c., &c., &e. 


Now you were asked a question what you thought of the exclusion of 
that oil. 

Mr. WHITEWAY. He didn’t answer it. , 

Mr. DANA. You withdrew it, didn’t you? Perhaps this letter occurred 
to your mind. 

The PRESIDENT. We suggested that the question had better be with- 
drawn. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Before you leave, there are one or two questions I would like to 
ask you. We have been told by a witness—I think it was your pilot— 
that there was a difference in the appearance of the codfish that was 
caught in certain waters. I would like to ask if you have noticed that 
yourself.—A. Yes, there are a great many varieties of cod. They are, 
as far as I believe, one species, but they assume peculiar varieties, de- 
pending upon the particular bottom they are found on and the food 
they consume. Experts will tell you from what Banks particular fish 
are taken. For instance, inshore cod are nearly all red, while outside 
cod are gray. Some have larger heads, some smaller, some have stout 
- shoulders, and some are slender, but all these differences are local and 
do not involve a distinction of species. 

Q. Would not that, in your opinion, confirm the theory that the cod 
is not really a migratory fish?—A. It would. That is very good evi- 
dence that there is no great migration. 

Q. There is another question I wished to ask you. You gave us 
a very interesting account of a company that has been formed for the 
purpose of catching these predaceous fish, and you seemed to think it 
would have the effect of materially diminishing their numbers. Well, 
if human means can reduce the predaceous fish, would you not think 
that the appliances that are being used by fishermen must be diminish- 
ing the edible fish ?—A. I don’t think that the amount captured by man 
has any appreciable influence upon the supply of fish in the sea. 

Q. Well, that is what I understood you to say.—A. That whatever 
effect is produced by waste or extravagance in the capture of the fish is 
itself so trifling, in proportion to the natural wear and tear of the fish, 
that it may be thrown entirely out of account. The report of the Brit- 
ish Fishery Commission is very satisfactory on that point. 

Q. The only reason why I asked the question was that you seemed 
to think this company would succeed in reducing the number of preda- 
ceous fish.—A. Well, those are large and take a long time to get their 
growth. You can imagine a limit to the abundance of certain fish like 
the shark, though you cannot to the other fish, such as the cod and the 
mackerel. 

Q. You are United States Commissioner. Are you clothed with 
authority respecting the several States of the Union?—A. No. 

(. Well, have you any authority ?—-A. I have none, except that they 
are all perfectly willing to have me spend all the money I will in their 


| 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2849 


ports, and that they are willing to have me put as many shad, salmon, 
and cod, and useful food-fishes as I think I can spare in their waters. 

Q. Have the United States collectively or the individual States the 
constitutional control over their fisheries; that is, their inshore fisher- 
ies?—A. The river fisheries are under the control of the several States, 
and the question of the jurisdiction of the sea fisheries has not yet been 
settled. For the present it lies in the States. The general government 
has exercised no control or authority on the inshore fisheries. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Referring to your hypothesis about the waters of the world being 
supplied with one kind of fish as another leaves, what have you to say 
in regard to the whale fishery; whatis going to supply that ?—A. Well, 
a fishery diminishes to a certain extent until it does not pay, and then is 
abandoned. After being let alone it increases and again becomes a 
profitable enterprise. 

Q. Have any of the species of fish’ that were used in ancient times 
disappeared? They used fish in ancient times just as much as they do 
now. Do you know of any tribe having actually disappeared 7—A. The 
only kind of fish that has gone entirely out, so far as I know, is a kind 
of mackerel that was formerly found, known as the chub-mackerel or 
big-eye mackerel. It was formerly well known. Thirty years ago it 
was extremely common, a steady measurable article of the fish supply. 
I have been in search of specimens ever since I have been in my present 
line of inquiry, and have a standing offer of $25 for a specimen, but it has 
not been produced. There are many instances of the local abandonment 
of extensive shores. For instance, herring was formerly abundant on 
the coast of Sweden. 

Q. Do you refer to a distinct species of mackerel 7—A. A totally dis- 
tinct species. We had two species on our coast and now we have only 


one. I daresay there may bea few, but we dou’t find them as formerly. 


No. 70. 


Howarp M. CHURCHILL, of Rustico, Prince Edward Island, a 
United States citizen, fish-merchant, called on behalf of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Question. How long have you lived at Rustico ?—Answer. Nineteen 
years. , 
@. Have you been there usually through the winter ?—A. Most of the 


time. Some winters I have been in Boston, and some in Charlottetown. 


Q. Most of the winters as well as summers you have been on the 
island ?—A. Yes. 

-Q. What is your business 7—A. Fishing. 

Q. Explain how you carry it on?—A. Well, we engage men in the 
Spring. I do differently from most of them, I expect; I hire them by 
the month. 

Q. To do what 7?—A. To fish or to do anything else on shore, but the 
general thing is to fish. 

Q. How many men do you hire?—A. The average is about 45. 

Q. How do you hire them?—A. I hire them by the month, feed and 
find them and everything. 

_ Q. Do you supply boats?—A. Yes. 
Q. How many boats ?—A. Eight. . 
179 F 


\ 


2850 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How many stages have you?—A. I only run one; I have others, 
but I only run one. 

Q. Do you have a store also in connection with your business 7—A. 
Yes. 

Q. What do you pay these men as wages. You say they are employed 
by you ?—A. The average wages are, [ think, about $22 or $23 each. 

Q. Do you find them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. For how many months in the year ?—A. Very near four—three and 
a half. 

Q. Then you have the total produce of their catch ?—A. Yes. 

(). What do they catch ?—A. Fish—mackerel principally. 

Q. Now, you have a house at Rustico?—A. Yes. 

Q. You live there with your family ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What are your facilities for observing where the vessels and boats 
fish off Rustico?—A. I can see. Of course we are ‘not on a cape, but 
we cau see a few miles around. 

Q. Your place of business and home are in sight of the harbor, and 
the sea beyond it?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now I would like you to tell the Commission where the boats fish 
for mackerel off Rustico; how far out they go and how close in?—A. It 
is all distances, of cours?. In the spring and summer months they al- 
ways fish in closer. 

Q. How nearis “ close in?”—A. From a mile to three miles. Later in 
the season they have to go out. 

Q. How far?—A. As far as ten miles. The last month of this year 
they were out ten miles. The average is eight or seven. They go out 
so that you can’t see the boats. 


Q. What is the size of the boat?—A. Well, the boats are 27 to 30 | 


feet keel. 

Q. How does the size of the boats that are built for the last two or 
three years compare with those that were used previously ?7—A. They 
have built larger boats for the last two or three years. A few years 
ago they used small boats altogether, about 15 or 16 feet keel. 


Q. Are they being made bigger to enable them to go farther out ?— | 


A. Yes. It is fall fish we depend upon mostly. The small boats don’t 
like to go off for them. 

Q. What do you mean by saying you depend mostly upon the fall 
fish ?—A. Well, the mackerel go off in the fall. They dou’t keep as 
close in as they do in the spring and summer. 

Q. Which part of the mackerel season is the most important, the 
earlier or the latter part ?—A. The latter part, of course. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because the mackerel are larger and fatter later in the 
season. They are growing. The first mackerel are always poor. The 
last mackerel we expect to be fat. 

Q. Has the mackerel season ended yet ?—A. It is aboutended; they 
are hauling in the boats now. 

Q. When did it begin ?—A. The 10th of July. 

Q. For boat-fishing, has this been a good year ?—A. Yes; it has been 
a fair, pretty good year. 

Q. What has been the quality ?—A. The average has been' poor. 

Q. But the quantity ?—A. The quantity has not been great, but the 
prices have been high. We haven’t caught a great many. 

Q. How was the year’s business in 1867 ?—A. Poor, very poor. 

Q. What was the result of last year’s business? Did you make or 
lose ?—A. We lost. 

Q. How much ?—A. Over $3,000. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 2851 


Q. Will you make it up this year ?—A. I wish I could; I will not do 
any better; I-would be satisfied with that. 

Q. You have had an opportunity of observing, of course, where the 
United States vessels fish ?7—A. So far as there are any outside off 
Rustico. 

Q. You know where the mackerel-fishers fish off Rustico?—A. Yes. 

Q. How far off do they go?—A. They are sometimes inside and some- 
times outside. The last two or three years we haven’t had any there to 
speak of. [ think ten or a dozen is as high as I have seen within two 
or three years. 

Q. Usually, prinvipally or chiefly, do they fish within or more than 
three miles from land off Rustico ?—A. It is very hard to say; I should 
say about three miles was where they fish. Sometimes you see the fleet 
outside, and the boats run out to see what they are doing. I[t is a part 
of the island they don’t care about staying in close. 

Q. Why, is there not a harbor ?—A. There is no harbor; there is a 


.harbor, but it is not fit for a vessel. “A vessel can’t come into Rustico. 


Q. Why not?—A. There is no water; it is a barred harbor. 

Q. What is the depth of water over the bar?—A. Eight feet of water. 

Q. With what tide ?—A. With a good tide. 

Q. Do’ you know about how far it is from the land off Rustico to a 
‘straight line run from Cape North to East Point? Suppose you drew a 
straight line from Cape North to East Point, how long would the line 
be from Rustico to meet that straight line at right angles?—A. 1 don’t 
know any more than I have heard. I have heard it stated as high as 
27 miles. It is over 20. I never measured... I don’t know anything 
about it any more than I have heard. 

Q. You were on the island during the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. Yes. 

ne You were there at the time when there was a duty on mackerel ?— 
m. Yes. 

Q. You were there when the Washington Treaty passed, and have 
been since ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, I want to know what you regard the effect of the fishery 
clauses of the Washington Treaty to be upon the fishing interest of 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. Well, so far as that is concerned, we would 
rather put our fish in free than pay $2 a barrel; that is all. 

Q. You know how you regard it; I want your opinion.—A. Well, 
that is all; of course I look at the money; not anything else. We 
would rather not pay $2 than pay it. 

Q. Did you have to pay it when there was a duty on it?—A. Yes. 

Q. Didn’t it come out ‘of the people you sold the fish to in the States? 
—A. If I hire men, i lose that. 

Q. You are satistied of that ?—A. I am sure of it. 

Q. Sappose the duty was to be reimposed on fish; what effect would 
it have on your business ?—A. Well, I don’t know. Of course I could 
not hire men to begin with. IfI did, I would have to bire them at less 
wages. If I thought that really was to be the case I would not hire 
men at all. 

Q. You would not hire men to fish for you at all?—A. No; I wonld 
let them take their own risk. 

Q. What was the opinion of the people of Prince Edward Island, as 
_ as you know ?—A. When it was passed, of course it was against 

em. 

Q. What was?—A. That is to pay the duty. Of course when we 


bought fish we had to figure the $2 in. If fish were selling for $5 in 


Boston, of course we had to take the $2 out of that. 


2852 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Suppose the Washington Treaty hadn’t passed, and you had gone 
along with the duty, how much longer would it have taken to use up 
the business of selling mackerel in the United States from the island ?— 
A. I don’t know; it is pretty hard to tellthat. Weare in business, and 
cannot wind it up in a day or a year, especially the way I was situated, 
because I have to supply my men ahead all the time. If the duty were 
to be $2 or $5 next year, [could not help it. They are supplied for next 
year. The men I have are, two-thirds of them, men with families, that 
ive right in Rustico. I have to supply them all winter. 

Q. They are always indebted to you ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You are satisfied you had to pay the duty when it was paid ?—A. 
Certainly. 

Q. Didn’t you get it back ?—A. Not I. 

By Mr. Davies: 
Q. You have been at Rustico before the Washington Treaty and car- 


ried on your business all the time the $2 duty was paid, and have car- 


ried it on ever since?—A. Yes. 

Q. Taking the last six years, have the fisheries largely increased in 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. For the last six years? Weli, L ue really 
think they have. 

Q. What part of the island do you speak of when you say they 
haven’t ?—A. Just where [ am. 

Q. I don’t mean your own business.—A. I mean in Rustico. I can’t 
answer for anything else. 

Q. Are not larger boats being built?—A. Yes. 

Q. And more of them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is what I mean.—A. I thought you asked if the catch had 
been bigger. 

Q. I mean that more people have gone into it ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And more money has been invested in it ?—A. Yes. 

Q. As to the catch, of course you can’t tell what the catch was 7?—A. 
No. 

Q. I want to show that the fisheries increased, and more money was 
invested and more people engaged, although a duty of $2 a barrel was 
imposed.—A. At the time the duty was put on it was pretty blue. 

@. And for the two or three years the duty remained on, do you mean 
to say that more people didn’t go into it ?—A. I don’t think it. 

Q. Since then there have ?—A. I think so. 

Q. You don’t know what the increase was then, or whether there was 
any ?—A. No. 

Q. Would you say there was none? Could you state that ?—A. No; 
I could not. 

Q. You have a strong interest in this $2 duty, haven’t you 7—A. I 
have. 

Q. Have you a large claim, about five or six thousand dollars 7—A. 
About half of that. 

Q. I have the statement here from the petition in relation to that. It 
is $4,999 marked against you.—A. I am glad it is so much; I thought 
it was about $3,000. 

@. When you applied to get the duty refunded, you felt that you 
should get it back?—A. -Yes. 
oe Of course you naturally felt that that should be paid to you ?7—A. 

es. 

Q. Now didn’t you buy fish as well as catch them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Didn’t you buy them With the knowledge that the duty would be 
refunded 7—A. Yes. 


le le EL SOE 


J 
we J i 
le —————— sre OS 


Ba b 2 ee Sel 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2853 


Q. And you paid $2 more than you otherwise would have done ?—A. 
Yes. I didn’t buy many. 

Q. I refer to what you did buy.—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you thought over this question of the duty, whether the con- 
sumer pays it?—A. I gave it up long ago. 

@. Who do you think paid the duty on the potatoes we shipped last 
year from the island ?—A. It is no use to ask me that. 

Q. Who do you think ?—A. Potatoes are one thing and fish another. . 

q). I want to see if the same principle does not govern both.—A. It 
is merely gauess-work, anything I should say. 

Q. We got a price large enough to pay the duty ?—A. Potatoes are 
different. There are a large fleet of American fishermen catching mack- 
erel. What fish we catch is like a drop in the bucket there. ; 

Q. Have you studied the statistics upon that point to see?—A. That 
is my idea. 

Q. Do you know what proportion of the whole quantity consumed by 
the people of the United States cones from this country 7—A. I don’t 
know anything about it. 

Q. Then when you say it is a mere drop in the bucket you are speak- 
ing at random ?—A. I knowit. I know there are 600 or 800 sail of ves- 
sels. All I know is that when I send mackerel to the Boston market, it 
is what the American fleet gets that governs our prices. 

Q. You are getting high prices this year?—A. Yes. 

es the failure of the American fleet anything to do with that ?— 
A. Yes 

Q. When the price goes up beyond acertain point, who pays the duty 
then?—A. Well, that is what I think. If the American fleet catches a 
great many mackerel, we get a small price. 

Q. I think you stated with reference to the vessel-fishing that it is 


- about three miles off they fish, and that they fish inside and outside 7?— 


A. Yes. 

Q. That is what I supposed. Now, on the boat-fishing we are, I 
think, a little at variance, that is, you and the witnesses I have called. 
You know Ross?—A. Yes. 

Q. He does business alongside of you?—A. Yes; he is a good square 
man. 

Q. A man of thorough integrity ?—A. He is an honest man. 

Q. A man you would believe ?—A. Yes; a first class-man. 

Q. Now, there is another point I want to refer to in this connection. 
You don’t go in buats yourself ?7—A. No; I have never been out all 
summer. 

Q. So that men who actually do go would have a better knowledge 
of the particular locality where the fishing was done than you could ?— 
= Yes; but I know where the boats are better than they do them- 
selves. 

Q. How do you know that?—A. Because I am awake and they are 


- asleep half the time. Each one of them may know where he is himself, 
_ but I know where the whole of them are. 


| 


Q. And you think they don’t know ?—A. Each boat may know for 


|| himself, but I can see better than they can. 
‘ 


Q. You mean that, looking from the shore, you are apt to form a dif- 
| ferent opinion from those in the boats?—A. Yes. 
Q. Don’t you think that the man who goes out would have a better. 


- Opinion than the man on shore?—A. Not as to where they lie. 


| 


Q. Ross gives his opinion that nine-tenthsjof the mackerel caught by 
the boat fishermen are taken within three miles ?—A. I don’t think it. 


4 
f 
i 


= 


2854 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Alexander McNeil, who is he?—A. He is a good man. 

Q. He is a justice of the peace?—A. Yes. 

Q. Of good standing and integrity 7—A. First class. 

Q. Well, he has been fishing a good many years. He isa farmer and 
fisherman ?—A. Yes. 1 

Q. He has been actively engaged since 1851, and he says the fish 
caught by the boats are taken (see statement in evidence).—A. That is at 
Cavendish. 

Q. That would be correct there ?—A. He has a boat that is not longer 
than this table. They have nothing but dories and skiffs. They haul 
their boats on the beach on the rocks. We could not do that with our 
boats. We have different boats altogether. Those Cavendish men come 
down to Rustico and fish in our boats. 

Q. Then he does catch fish in that close?—A. Yes; I have no doubt 
his statements are true as to Cavendish. It is bolder water, to begin 
with. 

Q. How far from Rustico is it?—A. Two or three miles. 

Q. William J. McNeill, the member—you know him ?-——A. Yes. 

Q. He is a respectable man ?—A. He is a good man. 

Q. He is of the same opinion. Now, I will take the months of July 
and August—do you think the fishing is done within three miles in those 
months ?—A. I do. \ 

Q. Well within ?—A. Yes. ; 

Q. Then, in the fall, the boats go out more 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not the fact that they catch both inside and outside during 
the fall?—A. Certainly. 

Q. Part is taken inside and part outside 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You don’t know the proportion ?—A. No; but generally they go 
out. They expect to go out in the fall. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. About the middle of September, for instance; is thatatime when | 
they go out or in?—A. They go off then—off shore. 

Q. Do they fish inside much about that time?—A. Not much. The 
years are different; but they are always prepared to go outside. 


7 4] 
INOs4 ie 


Isaac C. HALL, of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Win- 
throp, Mass., fish merchant, called on behalf of the Government of the 
United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster : 


Question. You are a citizen of the United States ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q@. You have a house in Charlottetown ?—A. A commercial house; 
yes. 

Q. And you live part of the year at Charlottetown and part of the | 
year at Winthrop, Mass., near Boston, Suffolk County ?—A. Yes. 

(. How old are you?—A. Fifty-seven. 

Q. How many years have you been engaged in the fishing business on 
Prince Edward Island ?—A. This is the twentieth year. It will be 20 ' 
years next spring. 

Q. Since the spring of 1858 what portion of each season -have you 
7 gh on Prince Edward Island ?—A. I should think about 9 months in 
the year. 

Q. Have you been therethrough the winter so far ?—A. I have spent 
six years there pretty nearly all the time—part of the winter. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2855 


Q. Where did you reside the first year on the island 7—A. Cascum- 
peque, or rather Alberton, Cascumpeque Harbor. 

q. Since then you have resided at Charlottetown ?—A. Yes. 

@. Now, you have been in the fishing business, how have you prose- 
cuted it?—A. I have been engaged, owning and fitting out vessels, and 
boat-fishing, and I have been purchasing mackerel from the first. 

@. Have you had any stages anywhere 7—A. Yes. 

@. Where ?—A. You mean the firm ? 

q. I don’t want to ask you as to those that have been in charge of 
your partner, but how many have you had charge of yourself ?—A. I 
have had charge of three. One at Rustico. 

Q. How long have you had that ?—A. Seven years. 

Q. What others ?—A. One on Grand River, near Georgetown, about 
ten miles east of it, on the south side of the island, and another at 
Cape George, Nova Scotia. 

Q. When you began to do business on Prince Edward Island, it was 
about three years after the Reciprocity Treaty went into effect. Was 
there much fishing done then by the inhabitants ?—A. There was very 
little. It was in its infancy. 

Q. Did they know how to take care of the fish they caught, to cure 
them for market ?—A. No; it was sufficient to condemn fish in the 
Boston market, so far as bringing good prices was concerned, that they 
came from Prince Edward Island. That was the case previous to 1858. 

Q. Do you know how many barrels of mackerel were sent this year 
from yourself and your partner to Boston ?—A. I don’t know that I can 
give it exactly. I may approximate it. Only part of the catch has 
been shipped. 

Q. Do you know what the catch has been of yourself and your part- 
ner up to the present time—whether it is still in hand or going for- 
ward ?—A. Do you wish to ask what quantity I am shipping or what is 
the extent of the catch ? 

Q. What number of barrels of mackerel do your firm take, in the first 
place, and then what do they buy ?—A. The shipment will probably 
amount this year to something like 7,000 or 8,000 barrels. 

Q. How much last year ?—A. Can I refer to memoranda ? 

Q. Certainly—A. Our whole receipts last year were 4,534 barrels in 
Boston ; about 300 were sent to Halifax; in all, 4,834 barrels. 

Q. How much opportunity have you had to observe where the mack- 
erel-boats fish off Prince Edward Island, and where the mackerel-ves- 
sels fish ?—A. My observations thissummer. I have been at Rastico a 
great part of the time,’and I have had a chance to observe the places 
where they fish, and have taken some notice, more than I have hereto- 
fore. I have been buying fish since I went on the island, more or less, 


and havea general idea, but nothing very accurate. In regard to boat- 


fishing in Rustico, they fish in the early part of the season quite near 
the shore, from one and a half to two and a half miles, and later in the 
season, when the fish begin to move south, they have to go wide out for 
them. : 

Q. What do you mean by “ wide out ”?—A. From four to eight miles. 

Q. Take last month, run back to the middle of Septembér or the first 
week in September; within what distance from the shore were they fish- 
ing ?—A. We have been fishing wide out. We have caught no fish 
within four or five miles. 

'Q. You sent Mr. Davies some mackerel the other day; how far out 


were those caught ?—A. I answered that question before. 


Q. What has the quality of mackerel been this year at the island ?— 


, ow 


2856 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


A. We have had some very fine fish—a few, but the majority have been ; 


poor, very similar to 1874, when we got such a large catch. 

Q. The boat catch has been how good this year?—A. It has been 
good—more than an average. 

Q. But the average quality has been poor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is that usually the case when the boat catch has been large ?—A. 
Well, we never get a large catch with boats unless they are poor ; that 
is a very large catch I am speaking of now. A very large catch involves 
small and poor fish. The average quality of the catch has not been 
gooc this year, although the quantity has been large. I have at Ras- 
tico ten boats, and we have taken 1,250 barrels, that is, 125 to a boat. 
That is an average. Some of them have got 150,and some down to 100. 
I think the first shipment amounted to 708 barrels. Over 650 of them 
were poor—number 3. I call all fish that will go to number 2 fat. 

@. You have a table ?—A. I have a table of the percentage of fat and 
poor mackerel from 1868 down to 1876. Shall I read it? 

Q. If you please.—A. This is a table of the whole quantity that our 
firm received : 


Statement of mackerel received by Hall, Myrick § Co., Boston, 1868 to 1876, inclusive. 


a | S mS. = : 
as es bh 
@ Year. | No. 1. No.2. | No.3. Total. gS g 8 g ¢ 
| | 5 5 5 
| Ay rv py 
| 
a1 is eR ROE Rey by by be mabe ea Rae | 6, 639 i; 3203 2, 282 8, 188 97 3 79 
BG a eee Sasa ee 2,3143} 3,6573| 2, 047 &, 019 75 29 
1870 dE SE ERE ARLE aaa aren | 2, 885 3, 770 | T1943, 7, 4343 893 103 33 
DRM acorn eae aaoe ees e eee eee ee 7563!  4,6354/ 8, 8983) 14, 2903 62 5 
: (oy, ean RAN Te eine Le oan | 20293} 2655 | 1,861}  6,5453 71 29 31 
Tt 7 ee conde eo RR AP RE 2, 286 2, 052 1,4743) 5, 8123 75 5 39 
TST oso Oa he at 3,4393| 7,841 | 6,710| 17,9974 63 37 19 
LOTS ce ise Wee a See le 1, 590 4, 4363) 129} 10,1553 59 41 16 
LGV s saw as Been cee } 4 sali 1,5063, 1, 200 4, 534 7 Q7 40 
| 


Q. That table brings you tothis year? Now, what proportion of those 
were taken in boats and what proportion in vessels?—A. It is pretty 
hard to make an estimate without going to the books. I haven’t pre- 
pared myself for it. 


Q. You can explain how many vessels you have.—A. The greatest ' 


number we fitted out was in 1871, when I had 8 vessels. 

Q. How many have you had since that ?—A. I don’t think I have had 
over two since then., 

Q. You can tell in round numbers whether three-fourths or seven- 
eighths is about the vessels’ catch 7?—A. Taking the whole time together 
there may have been one-eighth vessel catch. 

Q. But, of late years, since 1871, would more than seven-eighths be 
boat catch ?—A. Yes, sir; nearly all. There have only been a few ves- 
sels out since then. 

(). Have you been inspector of mackerel on the island?—A. Yes, sir. 

(. You inspect yourown mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When your mackerel goes to Boston is it required to be inspected ?— 
ac NO. 

Q. It is repacked and reinspected ?—A. To some extent the people 
who buy it put it in smaller packages to suit their own convenience. 

Q. But it is not necessarily reinspected 7—A. No. 

@. And unless it is reinspected in that way your mackerel would not 
go into the Massachusetts inspection figures 7—A. No, they don’t put 
foreign mackerel into their report. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2857 


Q. Now, I have asked you where the boats have fished; I want to ask 
you so far as your observation extends whether the vessels fish in the 
same places as the boats or further out ?—A. I think the vessels fish 
more oft shore than the boats do. 

_ Q. Have you made any observations this year, or looked to see where 
the vessels were fishing ?—A. I have been watching the vessels since I 
have been at Rustico this summer. 

Q. You told me of some instances in which you made a count ?—A. 
That was at Cape George. I was there, and from the house I counted 
with the glass some 31 vessels fishing. 

Q. How far off were they ?7—A. Well, most of them were wide out. 
I counted three, I think, that were as I considered inside of the three- 
mile limit. 

Q. Now, I see there is a Mr. Curry, a gentleman, on your island, I 
believe, is not he?—A. Yes. 

Q. He reports you as having estimated the catch of mackerel in the 
bay as being one-third inside of three miles and two-thirds outside. Did 
you give any such estimate and under what circumstances; and does 
that correspond with your present belief ?—A. I recollect Mr. Curry com- 
ing in and asking me about the fishing 1 in the bay, and I gave him my 
best judgment. 

Q. When was that ?—A. Several years ago, I think. My attention 
been called to it here. It was 1873, I think. I cannot recollect ex- 
actly. 

Q. What do you say about that ?—A. I gave him wy opinion to the 
best of my judgment as I thought at that time. My opinion in regard 
to distance is not of course equal to that of men who have been on the 
sea all their lives catching mackerel.. I have merely been around the 
shores and conversed with the captains who have been fishing for me. 

Q. Where do your captains belong ?—A. To the island, most of them. 

Q. What do you now say as to the distance that the vessels fish from 
the shore off the bend of the island? Do they fish in where the boats 
do or further off?—A. They are sometimes in where the boats are, but 
generally further out. 

Q. Is the boat fishing and vessel fishing the same kind ?—A. No. 

Q. Explain the difference. —A. The boat goes from the shore and 
brings the fish to the stage, and has them dressed on shore, as a gen- 
eral thing. Some boats go out and stay three or four days from the 
north part of the island. My boats make two trips a day in the sum- 
mer, and in the fall they make one trip, the men taking their dinners 
with them. The fish are all brought ashore and dressed ashore, and 
my boats all fish on the half line or quarter line. 

Q. Now, can the vessel$ with a crew of 12 or 14 or 16 men get a prof- 
itable catch of mackerel if they fish in where your boats do that make two 
trips a day? What do you say about that?—A. I don’t know that 
my opinion would be worth anything on that point. I never had any ex- 
perience in the matter. There are some years I think they would. Other 
years they would not. 

Q. As a matter of observation, do they usually fish as far in as the 
boats do?7—A. They don’t. They fish further out. 

Q. If you were to estimate again as to the proportion of mackerel 
eaught within three miles of the shore by the vessels, would you con- 
sider two-thirds a large or small estimate ?—A. If I was to estimate by 
cofiversation with the men I have seen here from the States, I should 
_ consider that a very large estimate. If I took my estimate from those 
who have been fishing for me, and have been giving testimony before 


_ So 


2858 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


you here, I should say it was a very small one. I don’t think my opin- 
ion would be worth much. 

Q. You were in business on the island at the time the Reciprocity 
Treaty ended?—A. I was. 

Q. What was the effect of the abrogation of the treaty upon your 
business?—A. The treaty was abrogated, I think, in 1866. We had to 
pay duties on mackerel from 1866 down to 1870. From 1866 to 1868 we 
had a very superior quality of fish, as you will see by the estimate I have 
given you here. The prices were high, and we got good fish, and were 
enabled to do very well until the close of the year 1870 or the beginning 
of 1871, when the market completely broke down and we lost everything, 
you may say. It was in 1870 that the raid was made on us there from 
the Dominion Government, and that, coupled with the fall of the mack- 
erel, was a very heavy loss to us. Then, in 1870 we had a very large 
catch of mackerel, but of poor quality, and, having to pay duties, our 
mackerel netted us very little. I have an estimate of the exact amount 
of what they netted us that year. The net sales of No. 1 were $7.31 in 
1871; No. 2, $4.81; and No. 3, which is the largest portion, $3.44. The 
average for the year was $4.09, at which we sold 14,289 barrels. 

Q. What caused that fall?—A. There was a very large catch in 1870 
on the American coast, and the market completely broke down at the 
close of the season. : 

Q. They had a pretty large catch the year preceding and a good deal 
was carried over ?—A. Yes. A large part of the catch of 1870 was con- 
sumed before our fish came in in 1871. Our prices fell from $23 or $24 
a barrel down to $7. We had very heavy stocks and it completely 
crushed us. 

Q. What part did you take in getting the fishery clause of the Wash- 
ington Treaty enacted 7?—A. Well, I had a very large interest in it. Of 
course, I went on at the time the resolutions were being got up from 
the city of Boston recommending that the bill should pass. I wanted 
free fish and free fishing. 

Q. You met your Gloucester friends taking the other view ?—A. I 
met Mr. Procter, who was one of the delegates from Gloucester, with 
others. He had charge of them and seemed to be the leading man. 
There was a gentleman from Cape Cod. I labored with him a good 
deal, and tried to have my view accepted. 

Q. You finally beat him ?—A. Well, I would not say I beat them, but 
my plan was successful. 

@. What was the opinion of the people of Prince Edward Island as 
to the effect upon their fishing interests of the clauses of the Washing- 
ton Treaty ?—A. I have never seen any one that was interested in the 
fishery, either actually engaged or otherwise, but what, so far as the 
fishing interest was concerned, looked upon it as a great boon, worth 
anything to the fishing business. 

Q. After the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty, and before the fishing 
clauses of the Washington Treaty took effect, were you able to add the 
duty of $2 a barrel, or any part of it, to your fish, or did it come out of 
you as a fish-seller?—A. I always supposed, and still believe, we had 
to take it out of the fish. There was pretty good evidence of that in 
1571; when it came out there wa8S not much left. 

Q. If the duty were reimposed upon mackerel going from the island 
to the United States, what effect would it have on your business ?—A. It 
would have a very disastrous effect. We could not carry it on with 
the ordinary price to make it a success. ; 

Q. Explain that matter. Explain your views to the Commission.—A. 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2859 


Well, whenever there is a large catch of mackerel on the American 
shores, a thing which happens once in six or seven years, the prices go 
down invariably. In 1870, owing te the large quantity of mackerel 
caught on the United States shores, the prices went down. 


By Sir Alexander Galt : 


Q. At what time of the year did the break in the prices take place 7—A. 
It commenced about the December of 1870. We had to meet that dis- 
aster, and the consequence was that in 1871 we had to sell our mackerel 
at one-half of what it cost. In 1874 they had a great catch there, but 
this was after we had free trade, of course. We had to meet a very low 
price, and not having the duty to pay, we sustained ourselves and made 
a decent thing of it. We caught a large quantity of fish. The largest 
quantity ever caught was that year. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. I think you are wrong about that year.—A. The catch on the 
American coast was in 1870, the great catch. But they also had a pretty 
large catch the following year, and we had a large eatch also. It fol- 
lows almost invariably that whenever they have a very large catch on 
the American shore we get a large part of those same fish the next year. 
It followed in the same way. Now, in 1874 they had a pretty large 
catch, and we had avery large catch. There was not as many mackerel 
in the gulf, but they were all inshore, and we made the largest catch 
ever made. In 1876, last year, our catch was very small. It was the 
poorest year we ever had. We had not only a poor catch, but poor 
prices, as we had to contend with a great catch on the American 
shore. We had a small catch and they had a large catch, and the re- 
sult was that prices were very low, and of course it was a very disas- 
trous year for Prince Edward Island—as much so as any previous to 
1871. 

By Mr. Foster : 

Q. Now, how large a quantity of high-priced mackerel, say, No. 1’s, 
will the United States market take in a year ?—A. I can tell how many 
No. ls. 

Q. Take it at $20 a barrel, how many barrels would the United States 
market ordinarily take ?—A. It is now very unlike what it was ten 
years ago; that is, the market for mackerel. Then we had a winter 
trade, now we have none. The fact i is no business man has now any 
faith in a winter warket. 

Q. What becomes of the people who hold mackerel over usually ?— 
A. It is a losing business. It has been losing for several years. For- 
merly it was not so. 

Q. You say the market is very different; what has caused the differ- 
ence ?—A. I have no doubt in my own mind itis the very large intro- 
duction of fresh fish into the country, caught through the winter, and 
the great production of the western lakes. That is the principal thing. 

Q. But of the fact there is, no doubt, that is, of the limitation of the 
mackerel market?—A. No doubt. It was easier to sell 200,000 ten 
years ago than 100,000 to-day. 

Q. Now, you take No. 3 mackerel, what would be the effect of a duty 
of $2 a barrel in the United States market ?—A. We could not catch 
them and ship them there ordinarily unless there was a great scarcity 
there, as happens this season. 

Q. Practically what would become of your business of catching mack- 
erel if the duty of $2 a barrel were reimposed ?—A. Well, when a man 
runs his head against a post he must get around the best way he can. 


2860 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Ycu are satisfied you could not add the duty to the price of the 
mackerel in the United States market ?—A. No, it can’t be done. 

Q. How low must mackerel be to have a large quantity taken in the 
American market? At what price does the willingness to purchase 
begin to decidedly fall?—A. When No. 3 go up over $8 a barrel, and 
No. 2 over $10, and No. 1 over $14, the market begins to drop. The 
consumption falls off very much indeed. 

Q. Now, you didn’t answer how many barrels of mess mackerel, or 
very fine No. 1’s, could be disposed of at $20 a barrel ?—A. Well, mess 
mackerel is a very small percentage, not more than 3 per cent. of the 
mackerel consumed. Looking at the papers to-day, I see we received, 
from 1868 to 1876, of mess mackerel, including No. 1 and No. 2 mess 
mackerel, we received in nine years 3,097 barrels in a total receipt of 
mackerel of 145,980. 

Q. Can you sell this mackerel in Canada? Is there any Canadian 
market ?—A. No. I went through Canada and went through all the 
cities and large places, and spent a long time one wiuter. 

Q. How far west did you go?—A. As far as Toronto. I sold a few 
half barrels and kits altogether, a dozen to some parties. I thought we 
could introduce them and I shipped them one or two different lots. They 
sold a few, a very few, and I finally reshipped them to Detroit and 
closed them up. The people didn’t know much about them, and didn’t 
care much about them. ; 

Q. The boat fisheries of Prince Edward Island have increased and 
flourished very much for the last few years ?—A. Yes, verymuch. They 
have good reasons for it. 

Q. What reasons ?—A. A better class of fishermen. When we first 
started business we had, of course, to work with green hands. Like 
every other business, it has to be learned, and men have to be prepared 
for it. Then when the duties were put on, the best fishermen left us 
and went aboard American vessels. They could ship from the island 
or go to Gloucester and get good vessels and have their fish go into the 
United States and sell for their whole value. Wehad no other market, 


and had inferior men. Now, since we have a free market, these men ~ _ 


have been coming back. The character of the men and their ability to 
fish has increased very much. So much so that I honestly think you 
can calculate the catch of the same number of men now at 25 to 33 per 
cent. more than it was formerly. 

Q. To what do you attribute this greater supply of boat fishermen 
and better quality ?—A. These men find they can fish here. This is 
their home in many cases. A great many get boats and find they can 
very well here now fishing, and they stock at home and fish from the 
shore. 

Q. Now, if the island were cut off from the United States market, 
what would become of the fishermen ?—A. Well, these fishermen would 
probably go back to their old business. I would not want to fish if I 
had to pay the duty on mackerel. 

Q. Your codfish don’t go much to the United States market, at pres- 
ent?—A. No. Very little. 

Q. You cure them for the West Indies ?—A. The small fish are cured 
for the West India market, and the large fish are either consumed at 
home or sent to Halifax. 

Q. If you were going to pursue the vessel mackerel-fishing from 
Prince Edward Island would you require pogies as a necessary bait ?— 
A. We never think of sending a vessel without pogies. 

Q. How is it that your boats get along with herring and make fair 


| 
_ ——s 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2861 


catches when the vessels can’t ?—A. Well, it has been somewhat of a 
mystery to us all, but we make it work. 

Q. What is the difference between boat and vessel fishing 7—A. Well, 
the boat goes off and comes to anchor and springs up, and they comn- 
mence to throw the bait over. 

By Mr. Dana: 

Q. Springing up means coming broadside to the tide?—A. Yes. They 
throw the bait and the tide takes it away, and they keep feeding it out 
and gathering the fish around them all day; and although they may not 
have alarge quantity of fish they make a decent business of it. Whereas 
a vessel can’t do the same thing. They heave to most of the time and 
drift. 

By Mr. Foster: "i 


Q. If you were going to pursue vessel-fishing would you make any 
use of seines?—A. The seines don’t seem to be as favorable with us as 
they were. 

Q. Have seines been made successful in the gulf?—A. I have had two 


_ mackerel seiners there. Oue wore out, and the other half wore out and 
I sold it. : 


Q. To what_do you attribute the fact that seining in the gulf does not 


_ seem to be a success ?—A. To the shoal water and rough bottom. 


Q. What do you say about making a shoal seine ?—A. My seine was 
a shoal seine, made expressly for the bottom. Three times out of four 


_ you get foul of rocks and a hole is made, and away goes the mackerel. 


Q. Suppose the three-mile limit were distinctly marked out by a line 


: of buoys so that anybody could see it, and there was no danger of 


_ making a mistake as to it, would the right of fishing within three miles 
_ of the shore be worth to the United States vessels three dollars a ton ? 


_—A. Well, I don’t think many would take it. There are very few ves- 


~~~ omer nes a+ 


_ sels coming here now when they have free access to the shores. If they 
_ had to pay a doliar a ton I think it would be very seldom they would 


come. There might be times when it would be different, because they 


_ know by telegraph when there is a good run of mackerel, and when the 
| gulf is full they might come down, but ordinarily they would not. 


Q. To what do you attribute the apparently great importance of this 
three-mile concession ?—A. I think the great importance of it is this: 
that when sometimes a man sends a vessel down here it is a valuable 
property, and they have to trust it to their captains. A mistake in re- 
gard to the line might involve them in any amount of trouble. Any 
captain of a vessel if he was four or five miles out woald make out to sea 


_ if he was fishing and a cruiser came along, and it was unsafe to go even 


within that distance of shore, because you could not tell certainly as to 
the distance. No man can tell unless he has instruments. He may be 
25 or 50 per cent. out of the way. 

Q. Whether by mistake of the skipper, or by mistake of the cruiser, 
whether intentionally or unintentionally, if a man’s vessel is seized what 
is the effect ?—A. It does not make a great deal of difference whether 
he is guilty or not. It amounts pretty much to the same thing, so far 
a8 my experience goes. The business is broken up and the men thrown 
out of employment for the season. Everything is gone, and the vessel 
is laid up six months, eaten up by the worms. You might get your ves- 
Sel back, but you would not get 60 per cent. of the value of her on the 
Voyage. 

Q. How much do you pay for mackerel. to your fishermen ?—A. Do 


2862 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


you mean my boats? I pay $1.50 a hundred for their portion of the fish, 
delivered-on the stage. We dress them and do all the work. 

Q. Let us have the biggest and lowest price you pay them.—A. I 
have paid within three or four years $2.00 to $1.25. $1.50 is the aver- 
age. 

Q. You say that is for their part of the fish, What do you mean ?— 
A. I find them the boat, lines, bait, provisions, and everything that be- 
longs to the fishing. They have noexpense. They catch their fare and 
bring them into the harbor and we take account of them. We allow 
him $1.50 a hundred for half the fish. The other half is ours. You 
wanted to know how many we take for the barrel. 

Q. I didn’t come to that. Have you a copy of the agreement ?—A. 
(Produces and reads agreement.) 

Q. That is before it is cured ?—A. That is for fresh fish landed on the 
stage. 

Q. Now, being paid at that rate, how mnch can @ man earn in a | 
month ?—A.*In a good season he will earn from $20 to $25; in a poor | 
season from $12 to $15. 

Q. I don’t think I asked you about the size of the boats. If there are | 
boats of different sizes-that fish in different ways, I would like you to 
tell?—A. We have large boats, with five men to a boat. 

Q. How long are those ?—A. From 22 to 25 feet keel. 

Q. How long do they stay out? Do they stay over night?—A. Not 
my boats. The men all sleep ashore. 

Q. What is the size of the smaller boats?—A. A great many little 
boats fish all round the island; some quite small, perhaps 12 or 15 feet 
keel. 

Q. Are some owned by farmer fishermen ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you buy fish from them ?—A. Yes. A great many of them one 
their own fish. 

Q. Through you ?—A. Yes, sometimes. 

Q. And get the benefit of the market ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is getting general. Is that a branch of industry that has 
been built up since the fishery clauses of the treaty went into effect ?— 
A. It has been very much built up within the last few years. It has 
been done by dozens of men that formerly sold us their fish. 

Q. You have given us a description of what is called half-line fishing ; ~ 
what is quarter-line fishing ?—A. That is where the fisherman receives 
a specified sum per month, and gives the owner one-fourth of the fish 
for that sum; the owner thus receiving three-fourths of his catch. 

Q. You find them in food?—A. Yes, everything. They have no ex- 
pense, except for their own clothing. 
Q. Do you mean that you board them for the month ?—A. We find a | 
building for them, and have a cook-house. They sleep, eat, and every- | 
thing. They have no expense. | 

Q. Have you examined the Prince Edward Island Statistics at my 
request 7—A. I have. 

@. Have you read the testimony of your partner, Mr. Myrick, as to — 
them?—A. I did. 

Q. You know what he testified 7—A. Yes. 

@. How does your judgment correspond with his in reference to the « 
correctness or incorrectness of those island statistics ?—A. I think he } 
is very nearly correct. 

Q. Are there any particulars in which you would correct his state- | 
ment ?—A. Well, I might if I had the details, but as a general thing I | 
would not. 

| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2863 


Q. Well, there is one particular in which, probably by an error either 
of the reporter or of the printer, there is a considerable difference be- 
tween his statement and the one you gave me; what is that?—A. That 
is in regard to hake-fisbing. It was placed on the list at $3.50 a quin- 
tal. That was a mistake of a dollar. 

Q. Did you call his attention to that?—A. He said it was a mistake. 
He gave it, $2.50. 

Q. Are there any hake sounds exported from the island ?7—A. Yes. 

q. There are no hake sounds down in the book ?—A. They have got 
down cod sounds. There are 594 barrels of cod tongues and sounds 
down. He said he had no such thing. 

Q. You say that is not correct ?—A. Certainly not. I think it is in- 
tended for hake sounds. 

Q. Are there that many hake sounds ?—A. I don’t think there is such 
a large amount. 

Q. What become of the cod sounds ?—A. They are thrown away with 
the offal of the fish. Our cod are mostly small. I never saw a barrel 
of cod sounds saved on the island. 

Q. At what do you estimate the exportation of mackerel for 1876 
from the island?—A. Not exceeding 12,000 barrels. 

Q. Would there be consumed on the island as much more of mack- 
erel?—A. We do not eat mackerel on the island. 

Q. In regard to fresh fish: have you much of a market for fresh fish 
there ?—A. We have.a market in Charlottetown; we sell fifty barrels 
a year there. 

Q. Has anybody else a market there?—A. No; farmers come in on 
market days and sell fish. 

Q. How many inhabitants has Charlottetown 7—A. About 9,000. 

Q. And the only place where fish is sold, except from wagons on 
market days, disposes of fifty barrels a year. Farmers catch it for 
their own use, I suppose ?—A. I think they do; they are not a mack- 
erel-eating people. I do not sell on an average, in Charlottetown, five 
barrels of cured mackerel a year. 

Q. Any estimate placing the production of salted mackerel at 20,000 
for last year, you think,is absurdly erroneous ?—A. It is erroneous ; 
there is no question about it. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. How do you arrive at the quantity exported from the island; you 
have to make a guess at it?—A. We cannot get the exact amount be- 


| Cause we have no statistics we can depend on; we have our exports to 


go by; so far as they go they are correct, but they do uot cover the 
whole quantity; there is only 9,000 reported as exported. 

Q. You think that is nota correct statement, and that it exceeds that 
amount 7—A. I think there are about 2,000 barrels more exported. 

Q. That is to say, you are guessing at the amount ?—A. I cannot give 
the exact amount, but I can approximate very nearly to it; I know 
what. we receive and what our neighbors receive; 1 know every man 
who does any mackerel business on the island, and as I know about 
the number of barrels they ship, I can get at it very nearly. 

Q. You never set to work to make up such a statement ?—A. Not to 
get it exactly tc a barrel. 

Q. You never attempted to do so?—A. I never attempted it. 

_ Q. As to the quantity of mackerel consumed on}the island: you never 
Made any inquiry, I suppose, in the fishing districts to ascertain what 


' Quantity of No. 3’s the people consumed, or whether it is not the habit 


2864 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the people to keep some portion of the mackerel for their own con- 
sumption ?—A. I know something about that because I am familiar 
with the fishermen on all parts of the island, and also the farmers. 

Q. Fishermen and farmers ?—A. They use large quantities of herring 
and a considerable quantity of codfish in all parts of the island. I have 
often heard them say they would rather have a barrel of herring than 
a barrel of mackerel. 

Q. No doubt because herring is cheaper ?—A. They are accustomed 
to eat herring, and not accustomed to mackerel. 

Q. You would not put your statement against that of a person who 
had gone round and made an examination among the farmers and fish- 
ermen as to the quantity consumed ?—A. If he went round among the 
people and farmers to inquire as to the quantity, I would not; but my 
general information would give me the idea that they do not consume 
many mackerel. 

Q. But not having made any inquiry for the purpose, you would not 
place your estimate as against that of a man who had made an inquiry 
as to the quantity consumed ?—A. I don’t believe any man could make 
out what the quantity is. 

Q. You have no doubt the sounds spoken of in the statisties are hake 
sounds? We do not classify any sounds as hake sounds in the statis- 
tics of the island ?—A. I think so, though the price is entered as per 
barrel, and hake sounds are sold by the pound, being a very valuable 
article. There cannot be any doubt but that is a mistake. 

Q. When they put down cod sounds they meant hake sounds ?—A. 
I don’t know what they meant. 

Q. Would you say they were cod sounds ?—A. No; but the price 
should not have been put in by the barrel. Hake sounds are worth 
fifty cents, sometimes $1 per pound. 

Q. Is the value stated correctly, or is it an undervaluation 7—A. If 
they are cod sounds, it is a high value; if hake sounds, it is a very 
small part of their value.° 

Q. You have already told the Commission that it is within your knowl- 
edge they are not cod sounds, and [ — your statement as correct.— 
A. Yes. 

Q. If they are hake sounds they are aniere alued ?—A. Undervalued 
very much. 

Q. You think that is a large number of barrels of hake sounds 7—A. 
‘Rather large. 

Q. They form a very valuable part of the fish, more valuable than 
the hake itself?—A. Far more valuable. 

Q. I did not quite understand you with respect to people mistaking 
distances. Do you think it is easy for a man to mistake the distance 
he is from shore?—A. My experience is that when we are approaching 
the shore with a vessel we are very apt to think we are within perhaps 
half a mile of the shore when we are more than a mile away. Itis very 
difficult to decide the distance you are from shore from a vessel’s deck. 
That has been my experience, and I have heard a good many men 
express the same opinion. 

Q. Is there not the same difficulty in looking out from the land !—A. 
Perhaps it would not be so difficult. Different phases of the ocean 
would give different appearances. More experienced men would know 
more about it. 

Pigs are head of the fishing establishment of Hall & Myrick ?— 

. Yes. 

(. Your headquarters are at Char‘ottetown 7?—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2865 


Q. When you are on the island, do you not reside nine-tenths of your 
time in Charlottetown ?—A. I spend a large portion of the time there; 
I don’t know about nine-tenths. That is my headquarters. 

@. If I was to say you spend one day out of two weeks at Rustico, 
would I be wrong?—A. I spent this summer half my time there. 

Q. But generally speaking 7—A. I spend all the Sabbaths and about 
half the week there. 

Q. Do you not generally live in Charlottetown when on the island ?— 
A. I generally go to Rustico two or three times a week, I remain there 
but a short time. 

Q. Your opportunities of observation in regard to the fishing there 
were limited compared with those of persons on the spot 7—A. Of course. 

Q. You would not pretend to give an opinion as to the distance the 
boats fished from the shore, as against the opinions of persons on the 
spot?—A. I have only been there one season, but I have been round 
the island for twenty years. 

Q. Captain Chivirie is one of your captains ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And also Captain James McDonald 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Was their evidence put in your hands to read by Mr. Foster 7—A. 
Yes. 

Q. You read their statements?—A. Yes. 

Q. James McDonald is now captain of the Lettie ?—A. He is now. 

.Q. Is he out fishing this year ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is he a good fisherman ?—A. Yes, a good fisherman, 

Q. He says: 

That two-thirds of the fish caught in American and other schooners are caught 
gy a mile and one-half from the shore; the best-fishing is generally close to the 
ore. 

You would not be prepared to contradict his statement 7?—A. I have 
not the same opinion he has. From what I know from conversations 
with other men, and from my conversations with him in former times, I 
should not have such an opinion. 

Q. I understood you tosay, in answer to Mr. Foster, that your opinions 
had been modified by conversation with American witnesses since you 


came here?—A. Not so much here; partly here and partly at other 


places. : 
Q. I understood you to say that, since you came here and conversed 


| with American witnesses, you had somewhat modified your opinion 7?— 


| 


A, If I had formed my opinion from conversations with them, it would 
be that not more than one-eighth or one-tenth of the catch was taken 
inshore ; if from conversations with the other side, it would be that two- 
thirds, three-quarters, or nearly all was so taken. 

Q. Did you ever converse with witnesses from the island about it 7— 
A. I have talked with them in various years oftentimes. 

Q. You have no reason to doubt that James McDonald is a reliable 
man ?—A. I have good reason to doubt. 

Q. As to his veracity ?—A. No; I would not doubt any man’s verac- 
ity, but the correctness of his opinion. 

Q. You merely doubt his estimate ?7—A. I doubt the estimate in re- 
gard to the American fleet. 

Q. Not his integrity and veracity 7—No. 

Q. You spoke of seining; what was the depth of the seine with 
which you tried ?—A. I had one of 10 fathoms deep, and another of 12 
fathoms. . 

‘Q. You found they required to be so shallow in order to prosecute the 

fishing there?—A. Yes. 
180 F 


er 


2866 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Did McDonald use the seine in the Lettie ?—A. No. 

Q. Who used them, and on what part of the coast were they used ?— 
A. The purse-seine I had with Captain Rogers, of Massachusetts. He 
fished along the coast, in the bend of the island, and back and fogth 
round the island shores. Afterwards I had a seine with Captain Mar- 
shall. 

Q. Did he fish round the island ?—A. The year he caught fish he took 
them over at Gaspé Harbor. 

@. You say that in 1874 all the fish were taken inshore; I mean, of 
course, a very large part of them?—A. I said the fish were very near 
the shore in 1874, more so than I ever knew them. 


Q. Some of the witnesses have stated that there has been a tendency | 


of the fish to frequent the shores of late years. Have you noticed that 


the fish have been taken closer to the shore of late years than in 1855 | 
or 1860 ?—A. I think the fish vary from year to year; I could not ex- | 


press a general opinion on that point. I believe the vessels of the islaud 


fish nearer the island than the American vessels, and follow our coast 
more closely ; I believe that has led to the impression that the fishing is 
so much inshore. 

Q. Were not Banks Bradley and Orphan formerly known as great 
fishing places ?—A. They have not been able to take many fish anywhere 
during the last three years. The American fleet that has come down 
has been a small fleet, and they have taken very few. 

Q. Are not most ot the American vessels furnished with seines this 
year ?—A. Pretty much all on the American coast. 

Q. And here ?—A. A good many, a large number. 

Q. You have stated that seining has not been a success with us ?—A, 
It has not been profitable either to American vessels or those fishing 
from the island. 

Q. But most of the fleet have seines this year?—A. I could not give 
the proportion of the fleet which has come to the bay with seines. I 
counted ten vessels with seines. 

Q. Would you say that one-half of the vessels in the gulf are fur- 
nished with seines?—A. Perhaps one-third. 

Q. I believe you have a claim against the American Government for 
a refund of duties 7—A. Yes. 

Q. It remains there yet ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is its amount ?—A. $30,700. 

Q. You told Mr. Foster that if a duty was reimposed y you would con- 
sider very seriously whether you would continue in the business ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. You made that statement on the assumption that you paid the 
duty 7—A. Yes. 


Q. I think it has been explained very clearly that the price of fish | 
depends almost altogether on the catch; this is the case to a large ex- | 
tent ?—A. Toa large extent; yes. If there is a large catch of mackerel | 


prices rule low, and if there is a small catch they rule high. 


Q. If the ev ‘idence given here on the part of British witnesses is — 
correct, two-thirds of the fish taken by American vessels in the gulf, I | 
may say, are caught inshore; and, assuming that two-thirds of their | 


whole catch in the gulf is taken inside of the three-mile limit, could the 


American fleet, if they were excluded from fishing within this limit, | 
prosecute the gulf fishery for the other third ; would this pay them ?—A., | 
I think it would be a difficult business to ‘do so, if that proportion is — 


correct. 


Q. Have you any difficulty at all in answering this question-; could | 


a 


AWARD OF. THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2867 


they come to the bay to fish for one-third of their usual catch 7?—A. I 
should not think that they could thus do a successful business ; it would 
be unsuccessful under such circumstances. 

4. You think it would not pay them then to come ?—A. Not if they 
caught two-thirds of their fish inside of and were excluded from the 
three-mile limit. 

Q. Supposing that they catch that quantity within the limits, what 
would be the effect if they were excluded from this limit, and if, in con- 
sequence, two-thirds of the quantity which they caught were withdrawn 
from the market 7—A. That would depend upon the catch on the Amer- 
ican shore. 

Q. You gave one year, 1871, when a great catch was made on the 
American shore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Suppose that the catch on the American shore was not large, and 
that they were excluded from fishing within the limits in the gulf, where, 
we will assume, they get two-thirds of their fish, what would be the 
effect 7—A. If there was a large catch here they would feel it very 
much. 

Q. Who?—A. They would. 

Q. Would the price then go up?—A. If there was a large catch here, 
and no catch there, this would be the case. 

Q. Would the price go up under the circumstances I have mentioned, 
if the catch on the American shore was not a large one. What would 
be the effect of this on the fish caught by the island fishermen and 
forwarded to the States ?—A. That would most likely enhance the 

rice. 

, Q. So the question as to who pays the duty depends almost altogether 

on the catch, and whether the Americans are allowed to fish within the 

limits in the gulf?—A. Yes; the fact is that they take three-quarters of 
the catch, that is the trouble. Some years they have a large catch, and 
 gome years this is not the case. 
| Q. Take the average: you mean to say that, taking what the Ameri- 
_ @ans catch in their vessels here and on their own coast, they take three- 
quarters of the catch ?—A. I mean to say that the inspection in the 
States shows that three-quarters of the fish are taken by American 
vessels. 

Q. But you cannot state what proportion of this catch is taken in the 
| Gulf of St. Lawrence ?—A. No; no further than I hear, that this catch 
i has been very small during the last three years. 
| Q. But how is it on the whole—no duty has been levied during the 
|| last three years?—A. That does not make their catch any less. Of 
|| course, if there was good fishing in the gulf, and they had free access 
to the inshore fisheries, they would be more willing to come to the gulf 
thav if licenses were required, or if they were excluded from these 
inshore fisheries. 

Q. A number of American witnesses have told me that they desire 
duties put on our fish, because this would give them an enhanced price 
for their fish ; do you agree with that view 7?—A. No. 

Q. You think that all who state that opinion are in error?—A. I think 
they are mistaken. 

Q. You differ in opinion on this point from every one of them ?—A. I 
do. I think they are mistaken in supposing that the putting on of a 
duty would give them more a barrel for their fish. Taking it altogether, 
I think that this would not be the case. 
| Q. If you are correct in thinking that a duty would exclude our fish, 


2868 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


must it not necessarily enchance the price of their fish 7—A. Not neces- 
sarily. 

Q. What—if the supply is limited one-quarter, would not this have 
that effect ?—A. If one-quarter of the supply was cut off, it would have 
some effect; but if there was a good catch on the American shore, this 
would not enhance the price $2 a barrel. 

Q. If the one-quarter thus lacking was made up, and the demand 
supplied, that would not be the case; but if one-quarter of the average 
supply was taken out of the market, do you not believe that this would 
necessarily enhance the price ?—A. It might have some effect upon it, 
but it would not enhance the price $2 a barrel. 

Q. You think not ?—A. No. 

Q. Between what prices do mackerel vary in the market ?—A. From 
$5 to $30 per barrel for the different qualities. 

Q. What are the causes of these variations?—A. Partly the qualita 
and partly the catch. 

Q. The consumption remains on the average about the same ?—A, 
No; it does not. It is not now what it was 5 or 10 years ago. 

Q. Has it been about the same during the last 5 years?—A. It varies 
according to the price. 

Q. What is the cause of the variation in prices?—A. The catch, in 
great measure. 


Q. Suppose that one-quarter of the catch was withdrawn, would | 


the price then go np?—A. This would depend upon the catch and 
quality. 


Q. If the catch fell off one-quarter, would not the price inevitably go | 


up ?—A. It would have that effect, of course. 


Q. Suppose that one-quarter of the catch on the American shore fell | 
off, compared with the average, would not the price then go up ?—A, | 


It always goes up then. 
Q. If the price goes up, who pays the enhanced price; is it not the 
consumer ?—A. Yes 


Q. And if the atoh is large the price goes down; so it would depend _ 


in some measure on whether the catch ou the American or on our own 
shore was large, as to who would pay-this duty ?—A. Yes; and on the 
quality of the mackerel. 


Q. All these elements would have to be considered ?—A. Some, yes; | 
there is no other market than the United States for mackerel, and of | 


course we have no other market for these fish. 

Q. I think you left the impression on some minds, at least, that the 
imposition of the duty caused your disasters?—A. Yes. 

Q. Was there not another cause for them, which accounted in large 


measure for the failure of your catch that year—the effect consequent | 


on your vessels being seized ?—A, They were seized in 1870. 


Q. Had not that a great deal to do with your difficulties ?—A. Of | 
course. I lost money by these seizures, and, my business being broken 


up, I was not able to trade in Charlottetown. 

Q. Did not that materially contribute to your difficulties ?—A. We 
would not have failed on that account. We were worth a large 
amount of. property, and we could have stood a great many losses like 
that. 

Q. But this was one of the causes that contributed, and contributed 
largely to it?—A. A small percentage of it was due to that. 

Q. Do you know whether purse-seining has been looked on by fisher- 
men generally as a failure or not?—A. I think that it is not looked 


| 
} 
| 
i 
q 
.| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2869 


upon as a failure altogether. Different opinions are entertained in this 
regard. 

0. Some think it is a failure and some think it is not?—A. I think 
that going into this seining is generally looked upon as a mistake. 

Q. Why ?—A. It is looked upon as an instrument that may be dis- 
astrous to the fishing in the future. A great many fish are lost in this 
mode of seining. A great many fish are thus caught which cannot be 
taken out, and they are hence altogether lost. I do not think that this 
has occurred here, but it has occurred on the American coast. 

Q. What do you say your shipments of mackerel will be this year— 
7,000 or 8,000 barrels?—A. Yes. 

Q. What do you think the island shipments will amount to this 
year ?—A. They will approximate between 20,000 and 25,000 barrels. 


By Mr. Foster : 


Q. You do not mean that this quantity has gone forward ?—A. I 
mean the whole shipments. This is, however, a mere estimate. 

Q. Mr. Davies has made the hypothesis that the United States vessels 
take two-thirds of their catch in the gulf within the limits, and he asked 
you what effect, under these circumstances, would their exclusion from 
these be, if they had a small catch on their own coast, and you say that 
this would tend to enhance the price, and of course it would. I would 
now like to know whether, on that hypothesis, prices would go up indefi- 
nitely, or whether there is a point where people would stop buying 
mackerel ?—A. Mackerel will not be consumed in large quautities at 
high prices. 

Q. What is the price at which they will stop buying, the quantity 
taken of mess mackerel, purchased as a luxury, excepted ?—A. Large 
quantities of mackerel cannot be sold at prices over $8 for number 
threes, at about $10 and $11 for number twos, and about $12 or $14 for 

number ones. 

Q. Do vessels which come to the gulf with seines, also bring hooks and 
lines?—A. Yes; they do. 

Q. Do you mean to say that no merchant can depend on mackerel 
continuing in demand at high prices ?—A. No, he cannot. The business 
then falls off. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. We have heard of a vessel called the Lettie, which fished on the 
American coast, of which, I believe, you are proprietor ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Can you tell me where she fished on the American coast, and 
whether she was successful ?—A. She fished there one year for pogies, 
and was very successful. She got all she could bring.. 

Q. Did she fish close to the shore or off shore 7—A. I think that she 
fished pretty near the shore sometimes. 

Q. That is the only Canadian vessel which you know of as having fished 
there ?—A. I am not acquainted witk any other that has done so. 


. By Mr. Davies: 


Q. How much do you pay the fishermen per barrel on shore for their 
mackerel ?—A. I have paid them $1.50 per 100 fish. 

_Q. What is that per barrel ?—A. $3.75, 

Q. How much salt do you use for a barrel of mackerel ?—A. It will 
take about 5 pecks to use a barrel and pack it. 
_ Q. What does the salt cost you 7—A. 25 cents a bushel. 

Q. When you speak of paying them $3.75 a barrel, you mean all 


_ round—for ones, twos, and threes ?—A. That would be for the average. 


| le 


2870 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What does the salt cost you ?—A. About 31 cents per barrel. 

Q. And what do the barrels cost ?—A. On the average, perhaps 90 
cents. 

Q. What is the expense of pickling and packing, leaving out the cost 
of the barrel and salt?—A. It would be very hard to tell that. 

Q. They put the price of packing altogether in Gloucester at $2, and 
they say that from 25 to 50 cents profit is made on that ?—A. In order 
to cure our fish, we have to put a large gang of men, perhaps from 12 
to 15, on shore, to handle the fish, and we have to pay them wages. 

Q. Would 30 cents per barrel suffice, besides the cost of the barrels 
and salt, to cure a barrel of mackerel 7—A. No; that would not begin 
to do it. That would probably take not less than $2 a barrel. 

Q. In Gloucester they say they charge $2 for packing ?—A. That is 
merely for packing—a different thing entirely. 

Q. That includes the barrel and salt ?—A. I understand that; but 
that is a different thing entirely. These fish, which are packed in Glou- 
cester, are already cured; they are merely packed, while our fish come 
in fresh, and we have to split, gut, and rim them, soak and salt them in 
hogsheads, and afterward, after they have lain long enough in the salt, 
we have to pack them up. 

Q. What would you think that you pack them for ?—A. I cannot give 
you an exact idea on that head ; but I would say that the whole expense 
would not be less than $3 a barrel. 

Q. Including barrel and salt ?—A. That includes everything. 

Q. And what is the cost of freight to Boston?—A. About 85 cents, 
or about 80 cents, actual freight. The cost of curing depends so much 
on the catch, that you cannot form an idea with regard to the actual 
cost. It costs as much to cure 700 barrels as 1,700, or there is very little 
difference in this respect. The cost is about the same in either case, 
aside from the barrel and salt. If you have a gang of men to cure fish, 
they are there, and you have to pay them wages; you must feed them, 
and when there is a small catch you have the same expense on your 
hands as when there is a large catch. One year you may be successful, 
and the cost will be small; and another year you may not be successfal, 
and the cost will then be very high ; and so no estimate can be made in 
this regard that would be correct. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Your vessels were not seized for fishing inshore, but for some 
trouble about registration? —A. They were seized on the ground that I 
a foreigner, who had a beneficial interest in vessels flying the Eng- 

ish flag. 

Q. At what figure did you put the price for a bushel of salt ?—A. 
About 25 cents. 

Q. And how many bushels are there to a barrel ?—A. 34, I should 
think, and 13 bushels would cure a barrel, pickle and all. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. With regard to this conflict of testimony, which is very great, as 
to the proportion of mackerel that is taken by American vessels inside 
of the three-mile limit—running, as you know, with witnesses from P. 
E, Island, to the extent of two-thirds or three-quarters of their catch— 
do you know whether that has always been the opinion of gentlemen 
familiar with the fishing there on the island and the localities where 
this fishing is prosecuted ?—A. I never supposed that it was. I do not 
think that this has been the case, but I cannot tell you what has been 
the opinion in this relation farther than stating my own impression re- 


2 a on 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2871 


specting it. I gave my impression! from what I could hear from these 
men and learn from my own observation, as you see, three or four years 
ago; and I gave it in good faith ; but whether right or wrong, of course 
that was merely the impression which I received. The testimony given 
here by gentlemen of integrity and character from the States is very 
different from that; and the testimony of men from the island, and the 
masters of my vessels, is right the reverse. Ido not think that my 
opinion on this subject is worth anything under the circumstances. 


No. 72. 


MonpDaAy, October 22, 1877. 
The Conference met. 


WALTER M. FALT, of Gloucester, Mass., fish merchant, called on 
bebalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Question. Where do you live ?—Answer. At Gloucester. 

Q. How old are you ?—A. Fifty-four. I am in my 55th year. 

Q. What is your business ?—A. I carry on a fishing business. : 

_Q. What do you mean by that? Are you a fish merchant, or are you 
engaged actively in the fishing ?—A. We have a firm, and send out 
vessels. 

Q. You have a firm, and are engaged in sending out fishing vessels 
of your own ?—A. Yes. ‘ 

Q. Have you beeu a practical fisherman at any time?—A. I was eleven 
and a half years a master, and other years as a hand. 

Q. What fishing did you prosecute ?—A. Principally cod-fishing and 
halibut. George’s fishing in the spring, and halibut fishing for the 
remainder of the year. . 

Q. You haven’t been doing anything very much in mackerel ?—A. I 
never tried that since I was a master, but a month at a time was the 
longest at any time, and hardly that. 

Q. How many vessels have you?—A. 18 now that we handle. 

Q. They are engaged in what sort of fishing ?—A. Mackerel, fresh 
halibut, George’s, salt fishing. 

Q. What proportion of your vessels are engaged in the mackerel fish- 
ing ?—A. We send ten in the business. 

Q. Where do they go generally ?—A. In the spring, generally south, 
down off New York, and to the southward, then they follow this way ; 
that is, on our western shore. 

Q. Do these ten vessels go into the gulf?—A. We had five there this 
year. 

Q. Have you been sending very long to the bay?—A. Well, this is 
the first year we have had so many for the last threeyears. We dwindled 
down until we had only one; that was last year. 

Q. Have you any knowledge, or are you able to form any opinion 
where your bay fishers go?—A. Well, they generally go northward to 
7 Banks BradJey and Orphan, up that way and across to the Mag- 

alens. ‘ 

Q. Have you been able to form any knowledge, from what you 
know, what proportion of the catches are made within the three-mile 
limit in the bay ?—A. In all my practice, and what 1 understand from 
my vessels, they practice outside of three miles on Bradley and Orphan, 


and at the Magdalens. 


Q. Well, in the course of your experience, with your vessels going 
to the coast and to the bay, have you been able to form any comparison 


2872 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


in your own mind as to the relative value of the two fisheries ?—A. We 
found, since I have been in the business, that our business has been 
more profitable on our own coast. 

Q. Do you know what has been done, on the average, in the bay? I 
mean per vessel ?—A. Well, I guess you have the account here for my 
firm. 

Q. You are a partner of Leighton 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, now, with regard to the halibut fishery, how many vessels 
have been employed, and what has been your knowledge of it yourself? 
How long have you been at it?—A. I followed that, I say, eleven and 
a half years, from the first of April te the last of November; that is 
what I practiced myself when I followed the water, to the middle of 
November or so. 

Q. And where have you caught your halibut ?—A. On what we call 
the Seal Island ground, Brown’s and Lahave, and in the Bay of Fundy, as 
far as Grand Manan, Marblehead Bank, and so on. 

Q. In your experience, what sort of fishing is it, off shore or within ?— 
A. Well, you can’t get any halibut within three miles, nor on the three 
niles. 

Q. Will you point out what course you ran when you were halibut- 
fishing, and how near it brought you to Cape Sable Island ?—A. (Refers 
to map and points out fishing-grounds.) 


Q. You know the waters from Seal Island toward Cape Sable and | 


Cape Sable Island ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Have you ever known in your experience in that fishing, of any 
fishing for halibut within three miles?—A. No. It can’t be got. 


Q. Let me call your attention to the testimony of a gentleman by the | 


name of William B. Smith, residing at Cape Sable Island. It is as fol- 
lows (Reads evidence of William B. Smith, page 439 of the British 
evidence, from the question: ‘* With regard to halibut-fishing. Is there 
any halibut-fishing carried on near Cape Sable Island?” To the ques- 


tion: ‘*Do they take the halibut they catch to market salted or fresh?” | 


- and the answer, inclusive): Now, with your knowledge—you say you 
have yourself fished for eleven and a half years—do you think there is 
any possibility of that being true? 

Mr. THomson. Is that a general answer to the whole question ? 

Mr. TRESCoT. Well, I will ask them severally. 

Q. “ With regard to halibut-fishing, is there any halibut-fishing car- 


| 


ried on near Cape Sable Island ?—A. Not by British people; the Amer- | 


icans fish there.”—A. That is not the case. 
Q. “Every year?—A. Every year, regularly”—A. They are not 
to be found there in any such depth of water; not so near. 


Q. “What is the number of the fleet which comes there to fish for | 


halibut ?—A. I have seen as hich as nine sail at onetime. I should 


suppose there was from 40 to 60 sail.”—A. There never was that many © 


in the business in the world. 


Q. You have some knowledge of the matter?—A. I have. I know | 
every root'and branch of it; and when it was at the most it was in | 
those years that I was going. That was the most that ever was done | 


on those grounds. 

Q. How many halibut vessels from Gloucester are there do you sup- 
pose ?—A. We ran at the most of any time 31 sail. These don’t resort 
to these grounds whatever. They resort to Grand Bank, Western Bank, 
Quero, and all such as that. 


Q. What proportion of that fleet would be fishing about Seal Island, | 


| 
) 
| 


‘4 ; 
ee, = % 


4 
i 
,! 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2873 


within the neighborhood of Cape Sable ?—A. None at all. No one 
practiced that business since | left it. 

Q. “Are the vessels cod-fishers at other times of the year?—A. I 
think they are. During the latter part of May and June they fish for 
halibut; then they fish for cod until October, and then for halibut.” 
What do you say to that? Do you know of any of the American fleet 
fishing for halibut in May and June?—A. No. 

Q. And then for cod until October, and then for halibut 7—A. No. 

Q. Now you can answer the question whether a man can see a fleet 
catehing them from his door.—A. That man never saw them. 

Q. I notice, in another portion of this same geutleman’s testimony, he 
was asked this question: ‘‘ You used to eatch halibut in weirs?” and 
answered, “ Yes, in our traps.” You don’t kuow of halibut being caught 
in weirs as a practice ?7—A. Well, he might be just as likely; just as a 
whale would go into a harbor, or a black fish, once in a hundred years. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. Did you go into the Bay St. Lawroned when you went aboard your- 
sel{?—A. When I was master? No. 

Q. You never were there at all?—A. I was there as a hand. 

Q. What years ?—A. 1851, 1853,.1854, and 1855. 

Q. In 1851, where did you fish ?—A. We went up to the northward, 
on to the Banks, and across to the Magdalens. 

Q. You never fished within three miles ?—A. We didn’t practice that, 
because the cutters were around. 

Q. Was that the reason you ddn’t fish within?—A. And also, our 
master that I was with, it was the first he was there, and he was more 
cautious probably. 

Q. Was that the reason you did not fish inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What was your catch 7—A. We brought home 240 barrels. 

Q. What was your tonnage ?—A. sais ald tons; it was what they 
call a pinkey. 

Q. What was her full cargo ?—A. That was all she brought. 

Q. What time did you go into the gulf?—A. The latter end of July. 

«). And what time did you come out ?—A. We came out somewhere 
along the last of October. 

Q. During all that time you never fished within three miles ?—A. We 
fished when we came down from the northward, after the big gale. We 
a across to Margaree, and fished to make up somewhere about 20 

rrels. 

4 Q. What time did ‘you go to Margaree?—A. After the big gale, ten 
ays. 

Q. What time was the gale?—A. In October. 

Q. You were ten days in at Margaree?—A. I say we were at Souris 
a week, and then came across between the island and what we call 
Margaree, fishing across that way. 

Q. Where were you during the big: gale ?—A. Up to the island. 

Q. What part of the island ?—A. We came out of Gaspé that morn- 
ing the gale come on. 

Q. It was a northeast gale ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were north of the island, on that coast, when you came down 
from Gaspé ?—A. I say we came out of Malpeque. 

Q. You said Gaspé?—A. I did not mean Gaspé; I mean Malpeque. 
We came out of that on a Friday morning, and Friday night the gale 
came on. It was moderate, and the wind hauled to the eastward, so we 


_ concluded we would go back, but it shut down so thick that we had to 


haul off. 


= 


, ome ae P 


2874 . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Were you out in the bay all the time?—A. Yes. 

Q. With Prince Edward Island forming a lee coast ?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. You rode out the gale?—A. We were under sail—the same as 
if it were to-night; in the morning we wore and laid her head to the 
southward and eastward until half past twelve o’clock, and then parted 
at half past five that night, and continued to make our way down the 
island. 

Q. What time was the storm over?—A. Not until Saturday night. 

Q. And notwithstanding this great storm, you came down along the 
windward of Prince Edward Island without being wrecked ?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Then you went over to Margaree?—A. Then we went to Souris 
and repaired our damages, and came out and went across towards Mar- 
garee and finished up the balance. 

Q. There you went within three miles?—A. We caught some fish. 

Q. You did goin ?—A. We had the heft of our fish before we went in. 

Q. You did go in and fish, didn’t you ?—A. Well, I suppose if we 
anchored under the island we were in. 

Q. What objection have you to mention the fact 7—A. I acknowledge 
we went inside. 

Q. You took fish in there?—A. Yes. 


Q. How many ?—A. I can’t tell exactly. It might tote up 15 or it 


might be 20. 

Q. It might be 25 or 30?—A. I didn’t say that. 

Q. But can you say it and tell the truth? If you did say 30 would it 
be true?—A. No. I guess we didn’t get that many there. 

Q. How many do you say you did get ?—A. From 15 to 20. 

Q. Do you swear you didn’t get more than 20?—A. I would not 
swear, because I could not bring that to my recollection perfectly. 

Q. Those you took close inshore?—A. Well, yes, the same as the 
rest of our vessels did. 

Q. Were there many besides your own in ?—A. I could not call that 
to my recollection. There might be one or two or there might be half 
a dozen. 

Q. Were there or not ?—A. I could not say. 

Q. Did you see any ?—A. I say I could not bring it to my recollec- 
tion. I know there was some there. 

Q. Did you see any ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. Did you see them also fishing within the limits ?—A. I could not 
call that to my recollection, who they were. There was English and 
American vessels there. 

Q. Will you undertake to swear, or will you undertake to deny, that 
there was a number of American vessels fishing around you at the same 
time, and fishing within three miles?—A. I could not say that. 

Q. You will not swear there was any? Have you auy doubt what- 
ever that a number of American vessels were fishing around you within 
three miles; that they were there, and that you saw them ?—A. They 
are just as likely to be in the same position as myself, three, or four, or 
five miles. 

Q. Do you say your vessel was three, or four, or five miles ?—A. She 
was to and fro, yes. 

Q. You admit you took those 20 barrels ?—A. I say from 15 to 20. 

= You took those within three miles ?—A. I won’t say we did, all of 
them, 

Q. You said you took 15 or 20 barrels within three miles. Now, you 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2875 


mean to say you did not?—A. You asked me if I was there at Mar- 
aree. 

: Q. I asked you how many you took within the three-mile limit, and 

you said from 15 to 20. Now you say you didn’t do anything of the 

kind ?—A. I don’t say I didn’t. 

Q. Didn’t you tell me just now you took those within three miles ?— 
A. I might have answered that. 

Q. Did you tell the truth when you did say so? 

Mr. TRESCOT. I wish to enter my respectful protest against the style 
of cross-exawination. 

Mr. THOMSON. I enter my counter-protest against the witness evad- 
ing plain questions. 

Q. Didn’t you tell me just now, within the last ten minutes, that you 
caught from 15 to 20 barrels within the three-mile limit off Margaree ?— 
A. I stated that we caught from 15 to 20 barrels while we were there. 
We might have been, I hava said, inside of three miles. 

Q. Have you any doubt about it?—A. I have no doubt we were in- 
side the limits. 

Q. When you took the 15 or 20 barrels?]—A. We might not have 
taken them all. 

Q. How many do you swear you took inside the limits 7—A. I could 
not say whether we were all the time inside the three miles. 

Q. 1 don’t care whether you were all the time or half the time; but 
how many barrels will you swear you took within the limits?7—A..I 


| Can’t say. 


Q. Will you swear to five?—A. Yes. 
Q. Will you swear to ten?—A. No. 
Q. Then you swear positively it was between five and ten, and noth- 


' ing over ?—A. I would not swear positively over that. 


Q. How many did you get ?—A. I will swear to five barrels. 

Q. Five is as high as you will go, after telling me you caught 20 bar- 
Tels within three miles?—A. No; I said around that place. 

~ Q. Will you swear you caught one single barrel outside the limits 
around Margaree?—A. I could not say that we were at the time three 
miles off all the time or three miles in. 

Q. Then your evidence is this, if I understand you: You swear posi- 


i tively that you took five barrels within the limits; and you won’t swear 


that you took one single barrel outside the limits. That is the extraor- 
dinary testimony you give now. LIask you, will you swear that you 
took a single barrel outside, and you say you will not?—A. I say I can 
swear. 

Q. Didn’t you tell me—I asked you if you would swear that you 
caught a single barrel outside, and you said you could not?—A. I didn’t 
understand you. 

Q. What was your answer?—A. I said yes, sir. 

Q. Didn’t you answer that you could not undertake to say 7—A. I 


didn’t mean it if I did; not by any means. 


Q. Now, your next trip was when ?—A. 1853. 

Q. Where did you fish then ?—A. On the same grounds. 

Q. Were you master then?—A. No; I wasa hand. All my time in 
the bay I was a hand. 

Q. Did you fish then within the three-mile limit ?—A. We fished in 
the fall on the same grounds, at Margaree and Cheticamp. 

Q. Do you mean to say those were the only places you fished within 


the limits—that is,Cheticamp and Margaree?—A. We fished BP the 


island, on Bradley and Orphan and at the Magdalens. 


~ 


jy 


, 


2876 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Do you call that fishing within the limits 7—A. No. 

Q. Then I come back to your fishing on Margaree and Cheticamp, 
Do I understand you only fished within the limits at Margaree and 
Cheticamp ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many did you take ?—A. Probably about 40 barrels. 

Q. Now you understand my question, how many barrels did you take 
at Margaree and Cheticamp within the limits? Your answer is 40 bar- 
rels. Is-that right? Did you take off Margaree and Cheticamp, out- 
side the limits, any fish ?—A. When we worked across from the Mag- 
daleus we fished across outside the limits. 

Q. You just took 40 barrels within the limits?—A. To the best of my 
knowledge. 

Q. Those you certainly did take within the limits? On that occasion 
were there a number of American vessels fishing around you?—A, I 
could not tell you the number, whether there were more or less. 

Q. I want to know whether there was a number of American vessels 
around you. There were vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Can you give me any idea how many ?—A. I cannot. 

Q. Over ten?—A. I could not say. 

Q. Could you say there were not twenty ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Will you swear there were five ?7—A. I should think there was five 
the time we were fishing. 

Q. They were also fishing, were they?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now what was the tonnage of your schooner on that occasion ?— 
A. About 90 tons, carpenters’ measurement. 

Q. She carried a cargo of 400 barrels ?—A. No, 275. 

Q. Was that a full cargo?—A. No, she carried about 300 barrels. 

Q. Now during all that time you did not fish anywhere around the ~ 
coast of New Brunswick, Bay Chaleurs, or Prince Edward Island ?—A. 
No. | 

Q. Why didn’t you fish within three miles iA. All our fishing was © 
on the Cape Breton side. 

Q. Why didn’t you fish along the Prince Edward Island shore ?—A, | 
Because we were not on that coast. 

Q. You were on the coast if you were on the Orphan Bank. That is 
avery little distance from the coast ; why didn’t you fish inshore there ?— 
A. We didn’t resort there. 

Q. Why? Were you afraid of cutters ?—A. Yes: the large one was 
there, and the small one, too, and the sailing-schooners. 
Q. What time did you leave the bay that year ?—A. In the latter part 
of October. | 

Q. And you didn’t get a full cargo ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know anything about the inshore fisheries, of your own 
knowledge, at all, except at Margaree and Chetticamp ?~A. No. 

Q. You never have fished inshore except there 7—A. That is all. 

Q. Never at any time 7?—A. No. 

Q. What time did you go next into the bay 7—A. 1854. . 

Q. After the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you had the liberty of fishing inshore 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you swear that you never tried inshore, although you had he | 
liberty ?—A. We had the liberty then of going in to get water. 

Q. And to fish too?—A. We took the opportunity, as we came out of | 
the harbor, or anything like that, to try as we went off. 

Q. Didn’t you know you had as good a right as the British fisher- i | 
men ?—A. Yes. 

Q..Didn’t you try?—A. Yes. : 
| 
| 


— 


| 
} 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2877 


«. You say you only tried when you were driven in?—A. I say when 
we came out of the harbor. 

Q. This was the common practice, whether you had the right or not? 
A. Yes; that is our practice on our own coast. 

Q. Didn’t you ever go in and try what the inshore fisheries were like 
when you had the privilege; there was no cutter then?—A, All my 
first two years there was. 

Q. I am speaking now of 1854. You said you did not go in there, 
and I want to know why ?7—A. Wherever we could find them most we 
tried. 

Q. Did you or did you not fish inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Along the whole coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. Wherever 
we could find fish, the same as off East Point, off Malpeque, and such 
like as that. 

Q. Did you fish within three miles ?—A. You can get a few. 

Q. Why did you tell me that at the time you were in the gulf you 
never fished within the limits except at Cheticamp and Margaree, when 
it now turns out——A. I mean that time I was there in those sea- 
sons. 

Q. What seasons 7—A. 1851 to 1853. 

Q. I did not ask you that. I asked you generally. You told me you 
never fished inside except at Margaree and Cheticamp. There is no 
mistake about that?—A. That is all correct, but I didn’t intend a 


_ thing more than that year. 


Q. Very well, then, I will take 1855. Did you get a full cargo in 
1854?—A. No. 

Q. What was the vessel’s size ?—A. The same size—90 tons. 

Q. How many did you get that year ?—A. 275. 

Q. Was that a full cargo 7—A. She would probably carry 350 barrels, 


_ Small packages and all. 


Q. Then you hadn’t a full cargo ?—A. No; no year I was there. 
Q. Didn’t you fish along off Cascumpec at all?—A. No; we never 


found any. 


Q. Didn’t you fish at the Magdalen Islands at all ?—A. We were 
across there. 

Q. Did you catch many there 7?—A. Some. 

Q. Now, take 1855; where did you fish then?—A. On the same 
grounds. 

Q. What do you call the same grounds? Do you mean that you 
fished along inshore that year?—A. It was inshore at Magaree and 


| Cheticamp. 


Q. Anywhere else inshore ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you get a full cargo ?—A. No. 

Q. Then, although you did not get a full cargo, you never tried the 
fishing inshore ?—A. No. 

Q. Why did you keep away 1—A. Wherever we found most fish we 
resorted. 

Q. Now, didn’t you get your fall cargo ?—A. No. 

Q. Then why didu’t you try inshore 7—A. We tried inshore when we 
were winding up in the fall. 

Q. Where?—A. We tried inshore at Margaree and Cheticamp. 

Q. Why didn’t you try inshore at the island ?—A, Because nobody 
else caught any. 

Q. You discovered that others had tried and failed?—A. Yes. 

Q. Who did you inquire of _—A. We came with the fleet. 

Q. Did you inquire of the vessels that did fish in there, and find 


on 
= 


2878 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 


that they didn’t catch any?—A. Yes. If they had, we would have 
tried too. 

Q. Lask you, did you ever inquire of other vessels that had fished 
in there and got nothing ?—A. We never practiced inside three miles 
or two miles of the shore. 

Q. Now, don’t you know that is an evasion of my question. I asked 
you if you ever inquired of any captains whether they had fished in- 
side and whether they had got any inside, and you say you never praec- 
ticed inside. I will put my question again. Did you, on that occasion, 
in 1855, meet any single American vessel that had fished inside of three 
miles along the coast of Prince Edward Island, and learn from her that 
there was no inside fishing ?—A. I didn’t particularly —— 

Q. Then, although—— 

Mr. TREscoT. Let him answer. 


Q. Do you want to say anything else?—-A. When we are around | 
among our vessels, we speak and say this: ‘ Did you find any fish, | 


such and so?” And they say “No.” Of course we don’t go there. 


Q. Well, I presume you don’t say “ such and so.” You give the name © 


of the place 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, I ask whether you put the question whether they had 
fished at any place around the coast of Prince Edward Island ?—A. No, 

Q. Then, without finding from a single captain that he had fished in- 
side on that coast and caught no mackerel, you came away with part 
of a cargo, and didn’t try inside, although you had full liberty 7—A., 
When we came away, we were on the Cape Breton Island side. 

Q. From where?—A. We were at Chetticamp and Margaree. It was 
in the end df the season, and the mackerel gave out, and we came home, 

Q. Now you have given the lie to William B. Smith. Do you know 
him ?—A. No. 

Q. According to you there is no fishing along Seal Island at all ?—A, 
Not so close in. 

Q. Have you been there ?—A. I have passed to and fro. 

Q. Have you ever fished there?—A. No. 

Q. Then, as to a ground on which you never fished, you are pleased 
to swear that a man has committed perjury—— 

Mr. TRESCOT objects. 

Q. You are pleased to swear that he has said what was not true when 
he said he caught fish there. You swear that his statement is utterly 
untrue, although you never tried it yourself. You don’t speak merely 
of opinions, but you have sworn to it as a fact—— 

Mr. TREScOT. The witness referred to (William B. Smith) does not 
say that he caught fish there, but that he saw them caught. 

By Mr. Thomson: 

Q. Now, why, if you have never tried that ground, do you undertake 
to say that halibut could not be caught there?—A. Because it is not, 
in that depth of water. 

Q. What is the depth of water within three miles or two miles of the 
coast there?—A. I guess you can’t find anything more than seven to 
nine fathoms there. 

" = You will swear to that? Do you know that from experience ?— 

. Yes. 

Q. Have you sounded ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have sounded there and found it to be only seven fathoms ?— 
A. I say nine. 

Q. Now I hold in my hand Admiral Bayfield’s map with soundings—— 

Mr. TRESCOoT. What chart is that? 


ik 2 ose eee 


ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2879 


Mr. THomson. This is a survey by Andrew P. F. Shortland, assisted 
by Lieutenant Scott and others. It is one of the admiralty charts. 

Mr. TRESCOT. What is the date? 

Mr. THOMSON. It is 1855. 

Mr. Foster. We have one corrected from the latest surveys, in 1876. 

Mr. THomson. The soundings will not have changed since then. 

Mr. FosteR. They may have been more correctly taken, though. 

By Mr. Thomson : 


Q. Here is Green Island, where that man said he lived; here are, 
within two miles of the land, soundings running up to 14, 17, and 18 
fathoms; and here, within halt a nile, is a depth of 10 fathoms. All 
these are in the very place where the witness said he saw the vessels 
fishing. He gives the bearings about southwest by west. Now, you 
have sworn that it was impossible for this man to see these vessels, 
which he swore were one and a half miles and two miles away from him. 
You don’t undertake to say, now that I have shown you the distance 
from Green Island—you don’t undertake to say that from. that distance 
he would fail to see them if they were fishing there ?—A. I say this, 


_ there was never that many to be seen. 


Q. Although you were not there, you undertake to say “that man 


/ never saw them” ?—A. I have been around the ground. I have been 


_ about the place enough to know whether there was that many there. 


Q. Now, have you followed the business ?—A. I followed it from the 
ist April to the middle of November. 

Q. And you have taken soundings. I thought you told me just now 
you didn’t fish there?—A. I know there was not that many fishermen 
ever in the business. I am perfectly satisfied of it. 

Q. How long since you were there last ?—A. Seven years ago this 
season. 

Q. Of course, you areaware that Smith was speaking of the last year 


/or two, while you hadn’t been there for eleven years?—A. Why I 


spoke—— 
Q. I don’t want to know your reasons; I ask simply whether you 


| know that Smith was speaking of what happened a year-or two ago, 


while you admit you never were there for the last eleven years ?—A. IL 


_| know I was not there. 


Q. And you knew Smith was speaking of what took place a year or 
two ago?—A. I know there is not that many in the business. I sup- 
posed he was speaking of what was transacted in the fishing business. 

Q. Did you suppose he was speaking of what was within a year or 


‘two. ago?—A. No; I understood that he had been speaking of what 


happened to and fro for years. 
By Mr. Trescot : 

Q. Just explain that. You are asked whether you understood that 
Smith was speaking of what he had seen in 1874 and 1875, and whether 
you denied that he saw those vessels there then, or whether you sup- 
posed he was referring to the fishing generally ?—A. That is what. I 
referred to. I supposed he referred to what had been transacted in 


_ business for years to and fro. 


No. 73. 


CHARLES H. PEw, of Gloucester, Mass., called on behalf of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster: 
- Question. You were born in Gloucester ?—Answer. Yes. 


. 2 


2880 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How old are you ?—A. 42 years old. 

Q. You a member of the firm of John Pew & Sons, founded by 
your father—when ?—A. In 1849. 

Q. I believe it is the largest firm in Gloucester ?—A. I guess it is the 
largest in the States. 

Q. What is your business?—A. Owners and fitters of vessels, and 
dealers in fish and salt. 

Q. How many vessels have you owned or controlled within the last 
fifteen or twenty years 7—A. About 20; we have averaged about 20. 

Q. By the way, your father started the firm in 1849; when did you 
go into it ?—A. I went into it when I was 16 years old as aclerk. Then 
_ aS a partner when [ was 20. He shortened my time. 

Q. Did you have a brother also in it?—A. Yes. 

Q. He retired from it in 1861, I am informed ?—A. Yes. Then my 
younger brother came in two or three years after that. He is in it now. 

Q. I thought you had a brother that retired about the end of the war? 
—A. That is my elder brother. 

Q. Who cdémpose the firm now?—A. My father, myself, and my 
younger brother. William A. Pew retired at the beginning of the war. 
My father, previous to the establishment of the business, went fishing 
himself as a little boy. 

Q. Now, what is the principal business of the firm ? What branch ?— 
A. Well, all are about equally important. We are largely engaged in 
dealing in codfish. Probably codfish is the larger part of the business, 
We deal largely in mackerel and herring, and also in salt. 


Q. Can you give us a statement of your mackerel business in the bay _ 
and on the coast of the United States for the past few years ?—A, I 


ean. It is as follows: 


ae aes 


2881 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


- 


‘\ 
98 10% ‘ECO 4 8 SOR ROEC REEERESE EERE THESE EES HEHEES OHH EH ERE EES EE SHOE EEE ED EBEEEBEHED ESE BEES EE (hdd eee eee eee ee ee Teo 
OU:S19 SOR con ses cer iene rs sr ecee ccm sisciscei de soa 5G)n omcise sels Onis ems tinnewe@ricnnisiee-> st heseni seen secs ereini~ssis)sies\a+esinninnssicinsahanssem waite'ss O27 ‘ysypon 
FS EEE ‘TB [eLoyoOVU 10S 
tod C66 ns LRP REUSE UTE CVE eL TP eee Tr POCO CE eT Cer e ee [e210 fp Avg 
i :9A0QG* 8u ‘sivod 1 UI WOTJONpOId YSYy Jo oNTVA TeIOT, 
“POPULIST » 
- OT E18 ‘cOL | Est ‘get | sos ‘TEE ‘I] FS EEE ‘tLe | geZ‘s | FEO ‘OT | SIT 8 C66 ‘LL | TT8 
GS 908 ‘FET | 009 ‘0&* | 000 ‘000 1] 00 c66 ‘of | 00% £78 Gx | O0Se | BE $89 'T € 
OT 166 ‘80 | FEE ‘OS | SI ‘ese | BE GEO‘OG | Sk‘T | TIF 1#¢ OF 6S ‘9 «1B 


LE FST ‘SIE | F80'%% | OBL ‘99 % | ss cc6‘9 | T6T 
GG LLL ‘BIL OSE OG lasses £1 $96 ‘cg | ccg SLF‘T | ShL‘T | 99 S61 ‘GT | SST 
60 993'S8 | SPLOT. = [vonnee em” TO 116 ‘2E | $99 69S ‘LT | STF ‘T GS HSS Lb 6€ 
16 666 ‘69 rid SO lei ae ae LG 196 ‘%E_ | CS RSL 616 T | 19 Sh9 GE | 18€ 
6E 8th ‘998 OOS OT eemne sss 6L SSE ‘OES | SF 800 G | She FO T10‘L1$ | OF 
< >) ot A 4 A A A cA =| 8 
gE £ ss ‘One A ° ° ° ou A. ° ° $" BS 5 & 
= 5 aS oo 2 - wo ~ - qe | Re 
g o> . . o, @ 
2 Sa aS 2s 
Z ‘ae oo | “8 : 
= *[pAOyoVU 910g *‘joxoyovur Avge eo ge - *IvO 
35 | <8 
“or “‘qsypop "48¥00 _% a 
“e20qe UBO}IoUTY Jo yqsnVH TSH Ho siojwa uy 3y3ne9 | -rozoyoupy 


eno oust OF LST MaUs WOR a2cr WHOL Ma eqrOM PHD UR! fo NoyonPOLT fo wIrMrDS 


~ eee ee eee ee eer eee ee Se 


2882 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


These figures give what our vessels caught. They don’t give what we 
purchased outside of what the vessels caught. 

Q. When you speak of the catch of your vessels, have they been in 
the habit of buying mackerel here 7—A. No. 

@. But your firm has bought mackerel in Gloucester 7?—A. Yes. 

(). Which has been the most profitable to your firm, the bay fishing 
or the fishing of the United States shores?—A. On the United States 
shores. 

@. Have you any statement of the result there carried out—the pro- 
ceeds ?—A. No. 

Q. Will you give me some illustration of the amount cleared by your) 
vessels on our shores? You gave me one remarkable instance 7—A, 
There was one schooner in 1874, I think it was. She cleared $8,000, 
which was divided among the owners. 

Q. After the crew was paid 7—A. After all expenses. 

@. What did the sharesmen get that year 7—A. The sharesmen made, 
I think, over $900 each. 

Q. It was done within what time ?—A. The latter’part of June, July, 
August, and the early part of September. | 

Q. Where was that mackerel caught ?—A. The large part of it was) 
caught off Jeffrey’s Bank, just in sight of Gloucester, something like 12. 
or 14 miles off. | 

Q. How many barrels of mackerel realized that amount ?—A. I think. 
somewhere about 1,400 or 1,500. | 

Q. What was the quality ?—A. Very fine. | 

Q. You gave me the amount of the last haul that vessel made in that) 
year 7—A. It was about 400 barrels in one haul of 10 days, I think. A). 
few barrels short of 400. 

@. This was seining 7—A. This one vessel was. 

. Most of these catches on our shores have been made by seining 7— 
A. For the last four or five years, from 1872, the largest part has been 
seining. 

Q. How many vessels had you in the bay this year—1877 ?—A. We 
had 5 go seining, and 4 of them were at one time in the bay. 

Q. Did those which went into the bay go equipped with seines and 
hooks and lines?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were they successful seining in the bay ?—A. Not as yet. 

oe you ever known cases of successful seining in the bay ?— 
A. No. 

Q. Can you give the catch of your own vessels in the gulf this 
summer ?—A. We have only had one home, I think, and she has packed 
somewhere about 200 barrels ; and we have one on her way home, which 
has about 100 sea barrels, and will probably pack about 90 barrels. 

Q. Have you heard from the third vessel ?—A. We heard from the 
two others, and they were reported having somewhere about 70 or 80 
barrels apiece. 

Q. And they were both equipped with hooks and lines?—A. Yes. — 

Q. Were their fish in the bay caught by seines or by hooks ?—A. I _ 
should think that the larger part of them were taken with the hook. | — 
The statement for the trip is as follows. | | 

Q. How many vessels had you in the gulf in 1876?—A. One. +] 

Q. What did she do?—A. Nothing; she only took 167 barrels. | 

Q. What was the profit and loss resulting from that voyage ?—A. 
The loss on that trip was $369.96 to the owners of the vessel. The 
statement for this trip is as follows: 


SN ee OE StS es EL 


i § 
| 


‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2883 


SCHOONER GENERAL GRANT. 
1876. 


Dr. 
To outfit, viz— 
70 hhds. salt; 151 lbs. Manilla; 238 lbs. sugar; 68 qts. beans; 85 lbs. 
dried apples; 58 gall. molasses; 13 gall. kerosene; 68 lbs. coffee; 25 
Ibs. tea; 54 lbs. lard; 191 lbs. butter; 1 bbl. pork; 8 doz. mackerel 
lines; 18 bbls. flour; 6 bbls. beef; 2 feet wood, and other siml’r stores, 


MMO Mndcidaaasicls'ac cae celsiesalses ata aaicse en seees sive saeemeciceseesisees $663 91 
Seeman Be O..C OUCK, AbliOlOs con soem ccsecce cree sacs sa sccswclacspeeleans 50 22 
POLS samc occ te Aa awelscenlesccesecamecienacs sc ssiese sacseon seculs cceissieass 12 75 
maar, etc: Tallway Dill, $27.00 -cucupe acs buns Gecnacicceesaseascens'akes 31 90 
locks; etc., $5.55 ; stores, etc., in bay, $42.30 .... cece. cane cncncecccccs 47 85 
Expense on trip, $20.67; skippership, $66.06 ...... ....22---. sees seen 87 23 
Ma AY, DIL, Gee 70; ANCHOL, GLC. ge OU caraiccaces ovate cone 'ssscisceeccee 25 05 
MRORBMIVIN GT, O9:14 > TiPGiNY, S20.85. nny sncsuanp accceat secpiense wuss 29 99 
Seinitir, $7.00 > GOUMAEINE, S194.08 ci wevciccauce cust ascs.aceeoese boss 201 83 
Seward, S17.03s: Painting, $o0.09%22 525. iewes aac s sncccclececceee seicse 75:12 
BORLINAROD S: Dill So's TEAMING: CLL ES... coc ntcatawcn cess cece cancidvaes 19 83 

1,245 68 

Cr. 
Bee SOLOZONALID sc hsccrs sem oele «scan se baeisa pone Someasieceiaceegeccetse css $30 00 
MECOL ILI) ee onic anor selos se asiscisiecwsc acess wise enw snelesce See sleene sss 832 09 
Sandries (split wood, tar’g and scraping, etc) .........--.-..-.---2--..---- 13 63 
MEPIS LT UD oo: oc selec anne eo a's civic 35 ads wine as ops emislenie sie ciissieaea Slcieaescs 369 96 
1, 245 68 


Q. In making this up, did you include anything for the captain of the 


~yessel?—A. Yes. We make up the loss as is done in corporations ; that 
‘is, the captain, whether interested or not in the vessel, has his share and 


/ wages, which are always charged in. This is a separate account from 


that of the voyage, altogether. 
Q. When you say that a vessel has lost so much, do you include in 


| ‘this loss, interest on the cost of the vessel?—A. No. That simply in- 


| 


| 


| 


| 


cludes the cost of running the vessel for the trip, with regard to outfits 
and outstanding bills. . 

Q. Is insurance included ?—A. No. We never insure save very little. 
| We cannot afford to do so. 

Q. What number of vessels had you in the bay in 1875 ?—A. Two. 

-Q. What number of barrels of mackerel must a vessel take in order 
to make a voyage to the Gulf of St. Lawrence paying ?—A. Do you mean 
for a vessel not employed in other fishing ? 

Q. Yes. If you decide to send a vessel to the gulf, how many barrels 
must she bring home in order to make the trip profitable ?—A. That 
would vary some. I have known vessels that got 600 barrels which did 
not pay their bills; and then I have known vessels which got 300 barrels 
that did pay them; I should think that it would take about 400 barrels 
to pay the bills of a vessel. 

Q. Without any compensation to the vessel owners 7—A. That would 
be before the vessel paid any profit as a vessel. . 

Q. What is that reckoning the mackerel to sell for?—A. Well, ones 
would have to sell at $15, twos at $10, and threes at $8—87 or $8, or 


‘thereabouts. 


Q. Generally speaking, how much value do you attach to all the fish- 
eries in the Bay of St. Lawrence as a business to be pursued—I mean 
the fisheries anywhere off the British coast ?—A. I do not think that any 


| of them are of any value at all. 


-Q. Which costs the most—the mackerelers that go into the gulf or 


2884 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


those that fish on our shore ?—A, The latter generally are the least 


expense. 

Q. I suppose that a seiner is more expensive than a hook and line 
vessel ?—A. The gear of it is; the gear is what costs most—not the 
vessel. 

Q. What costs the most, the manning of a seiner or of a hook and 
line vessel ?—A. The seiner costs the most, owing to the value of the 
seine. 

Q. Does the extra cost of the seine used on the shore make up for the 
extra cost of the bait usedin the gulf ?—A. The seine costs the most—not_ 
the bait; but taking the trips on the average, going to the gulf costs 
the most. 

Q. Can an average vessel be run so that a person buying a share in. 
her will get interest on his capital—considering this matter for a num- 
ber of years?—A. Do you mean taking such a share haphazard, or any] 
way ? 

Q. Not haphazard; but take an outside owner who buys an interest. 
in a vessel; can he make money by buying such property ?—A. You 
cannot get outside owners to buy such shares now. 

Q. Why ?—A. Because they have most always lost what they have 
put in. 

Q. How has the business of companies which have gone into the fish- | 


ing business prospered? I do not refer to Gloucester fishing firms; but _ 


how have corporations, which have gone into the fishing business, suc- 
ceeded ?—A. They have been unsuccessful. 

Q. You gave me an illustration of one?—A. That was in Salem; I 
think they called it the Chincoteague Fishing Company. This was an 
institution got up to assist people to go into the fishing business in Sa- 
lem by Gloucester people who moved up there. 

Q. In hopes of restoring the fishing business of Salem ?—A. They 
wished to build the place up, and they represented that by carrying out 
their scheme, money would become plentiful in their streets, the retail 
stores would flourish, &c.; but they failed completely in their under- 
taking. 

Q. Gloucester people up there started a corporation in connection | 
with the fishing business ?—A. Yes. | 

Q. What became of it?—A. I think they subscribed, and put: in) 
$30,000 and bought parts in several fishing- -vessels—that is, the at 
that went into the affair bought the vessels, : and the outside owners put 
in $30,000, and took tg in some five or six or eight different vessels. 


what they had put in, without deducting interest or taxes or anything 
else. 
. On the winding up of the business ?—A. Yes. | 
Q. Did they have intelligent and decent people to carry on the busi- | 
ness ?—A. They were successful in Gloucester, and were men who ¢ar- 
ried with them when they went up there $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000) 
cash capital, or capital so represented in vessels and material. 


Q. How are your Gloucester vessels, which are run by fishing firms, | 


owned ?—A. Firms as such cannot own them, save as individual pare 
ners. 

Q. The registration has to be made in the names of the inal 
members of the firm?—A. Yes. 


Q. Do the skippers usually have an interest in the vessels?—A. Not) 


as a rule, but a great many of our skippers own shares in our vessels. 
Q. Do you keep a separate profit and loss account for the vessel to 


me — , 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2885 


show the result of running her as distinct from the rest of the basi- 
ness?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you know whether your vessels, as such, make money or 
not ?—A. Yes. 

‘Q. How is this?—A. Our own vessels up to this last year have gen- 
_ erally paid. 

Q. Do you mean up to 1877 ?—A. Up to 1877; yes. In 1876 they 
paid, though not very much, but up to that time they have paid as ves- 
sel 


=. 

Q. What has been about the percentage on the average?—A. Some- 
times they have paid very largely. I hardly know how to answer that 

question, but some years I know they have paid 25 per cent. 

Q. What was that doing ?—A. That was during the years of the war. 

Q. In what business ?—A. They were employed in different branches 
of the business—cod-fishing and mackereling. 

Q. You have imported salt very largely ?—A. We were for many years 
| the only salt dealers there, and we have imported salt for 20 years. 

Q. That has been a very large part of your business?7—A. Well, no, 
/not a large part, but we have done the larger part of the salt business 
‘there. We have:sold on the average perhaps 600,000 or 800,000 bushels 
| @ year. 

_ Q. Have you obtained the prices of salt for a series of years?—A. I 
) have, since 1860. 
- Q. Will you give them ?—A. In 1860, the average price was $2:a 
\ hoyshead. 

Q. What prices are these ?—A. Those at which we sell. 

Q. To anybody that comes for a barrel?—A. No; but wholesale. In 
1860, the average price was $2 a hogshead, measuring 8 bushels; we 

(never weigh it, but we measure it. In 1861 and 1862, the price was also 
-jabout $2 a hogshead; in 1863, it was $2.25; 1804, $33; 1865, $6.50; 1866, 
$84.25; 1867, $4; 1868, $34; 1869, $27; 1870, $22; 1871, $22; 1872, 
182.25; 1873, $24; 1874, $2.25; 1875, $2; 1876, $1.75; and 1877, $13; 
_jmaking an average price of $2.76, for these 18 years, for a hogshead of 
_'8 measured bushels; that is, in American currency. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Including the duty ?—A. There is no duty on it; itis in bond. 
‘During the years from 1860 to 1866 the prices include the duty, which 
I think was taken off in 1866 but this did not go into operation until 

| 1867, though we had the privilege of procuring our salt on board of the 

vessels in bond, while salt obtained on shore was charged the duty. 


By Mr. Foster: 


-Q. During the last two years, the price of salt has been very low ?— 
| A. Yes} it is low now. 
| Q. Your firm have been large buyers of fish 7—A. Yes. 
| Q. It has been the larger part of your business—buying fish from 
| vessels?—A. We have bought more than we caught. 
| Q. Do you buy mackerel ?7—A. Yes. 
Q. Describe how you buy them on the American coast when a vessel 

comes in with a trip?—A. We go to the wharf and buy the fish as the 
(trip runs, paying different prices for the different numbers. 

| Q. Is there competition in this respect between the different firms ?— 
A. There is between the different buyers; the competition generally 
|} comes from outside firms. The firms which have vessels generally pack 
their mackerel. 

_ Q. This is after packing?—A. No; not always. It depends on the 


j 
} 
| 
} 
hie 


2886 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


_ state of the market. We sometimes buy ahead, and sometimes to 


arrive, and I, have known mackerel lay on the market for 2 months © 


sometimes. 

Q. How large a quantity of mackerel costing, say, $20 a barrel retail, 
will the market of the United States take? How largea market is 
there for high-priced mackerel ?—A. This is very limited. I should not 
say that over 5,000 or 6,000 or 8,000 barrels of this mackerel would be 
so taken; the quantity might perhaps go as high as 10,000 barrels; but 
I would be afraid to hazard that number as a calculation. The market 
will only take a very limited quantity of this quality. 

Q. Where is it taken ?—A. Principally by the leading hotels and res- 
taurants, which have it on their bills of fare. 

Q. At what figure must the prices of the other grades range in order 


to secure free consumption of them ?—A. Well, they have to be a cheap | 


article of food, and range lower than all other fish and other products 
of the United States which come into direct competition with them. 

Q. What must the prices be per barrel?—A. When the price of num- 
ber two mackerel, for instance, which is a staple article, gets up to $9 
a barrel, it sells hard; and we find that the trade do not then want it. 

Q. What must number one be sold at?—A. If their price was $15,a 
large amount of this quality could not be sold. 

Q. We notice a very large range of prices in the price-list for mack- 
erel; what do you say to that ?—A. I do not know as I understand it. 
It is owing probably to quality, some. 

Q. It is a speculative article with respect to price?—A. Yes; I think 
itis. I think that the prices of mackerel are as much influenced by 
speculation as by the catch. 

Q. You think so?—A. Yes; Ido. I think I can prove that and give 
an illustration of-it. 

Q. Let us have it.—A. I think that in the year 1870, if I mistake not, 
we had the next to the largest catch we ever had in one State; my im- 
pression is that the catch that year was over 300,000 barrels—318,000 
or 320,000; and I think that prices were higher that year than they 
have ever been any year that there has been a small catch. I think 
this was owing to the fact that in 1869, 1868, and 1867 there was a small 


catch; prices had ruled pretty high, and there had been a considerable | 


demand; and in 1870, when there was a very large catch, the speculators 
just operated in them and kept prices up. 

Q. Were these high prices maintained ?—A. No. 1 think that No. 1 
bay mackerel, in the fall, were bought by us at $22.50 and piled away 
over winter; and I think that the next May and'June they were sold down 
as low as $4, $5, and $6 a barrel, the same fish; and I think that shore 
mackerel, which had sold as high as $24, were then sold for about the 
same price. Prices had been carried above what the people would give 
and they would not take them. 

Q. Of late years can mackerel be carried beyond the autumn months 
without loss?—A. No. The way the demand has now turned, we have 
the best demand the time they are caught; that is to say, August mack- 
erel will sell best in August, September mackerel in September, and 


October mackerel in October; and when you get through that year and 


come on to the next year, the demand almost ceases. The market, in 
this respect, is entirely changed to what it used to be. 

Q. And through the winter and spring there is hardly any demand? 
—A. Well, when you get into April and May and June there is no de- 
mand, and holders then get rid of their fish in the best way they can. | 
From 1855 up to 1865 it used to be the direct reverse. We used to have 


- - t 
ie yi - _ = a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2887 


the best demand in the summer months and June. I have bought old 
mackerel in July and August that were caught the year preceding, but 
to pay very high prices for mackerel now from the commencement of 
the year would be throwing money away. 

Q. Is the demand for salt mackerel as good now as it was years ago? 
—A. No, not nearly so. 

Q. To what do you attribute that en, To tbe inland fisheries. 

@. Such as what?—A. The white and siscoe or lake herring fisheries. 
Whitefish have formed the largest element in the destruction of the de- 
mand, of late years. 

Q. To what regions has salt mackerel gone for consumption ?—A. To 
those near and in the large cities on the sea-coast, such as Boston, New 
York, and Philadelphia, and to Baltimore, toa limited extent; and then 
they have gone inland. 

Q. What quality do the cities take ?—A. Always the best quality, 
with the exception of Baltimore, which always takes the poorest quality. 

Q. Owing to a large negro population ?7—A. No; they are sent thence 
to the markets south of it, where they take small mackerel, which will 

number out better than number ones. The price in Baltimore for 
_ medium threes is as large, I think, as for threes, and I do not know but 
_ as large as for twos, or, at all events, there is very little difference be- 
_ tween them. Mackerel threes sell better there than ones. 

Q. Retail?—A. I mean wholesale. Number one mackerel have been, 
of late years, almost unknown in the Southern market, where 10 or 15 
years ago there used to be a large trade for them; in the New Orleans 
‘market, for instance, a great many of them used to be sold. 

Q. You spoke of inland fisheries; what do you say with respect to 
fresh fish from the sea?—A. That trade has been developed very much 
lately, and people will buy fresh fish before they will salt fish, codfish 
excepted. Ido not think that the codfish trade has been affected so 
much in this direction as the mackerel business. The codfish trade 

-/ Seems to hold its own; the demand for this fish has, I think, really in- 
creased. 

s It has held its own ?—A. The demand for cod has increased. 

| . Which do you regard as the more important article, the fresh or 

Me mackerel ?—A. They are about equal; there is not much difference 
| ‘between them. 
i 


‘Q. How far west do fresh fish go?—A. They go all over the whole 
‘country. In fact, before I came up here they were making arrangements 
to take fresh balibut and mackerel in refrigerated cars over the United 
‘States in summer. I think that a very large trade in fresh fish could 
‘be developed. 

Q. And they do go as far west as the Mississippi?—A. Yes; and to 
California. I have known halibut shipped to Omaha and all round those 
‘sections of the country. 

Q. What do you say with reference to the catch of herring on our own 
‘coasts ?—A. Well, the catch of herring there has not been very large, 
| and the price has’ been very low. I should say, excepting the annual 

eatch during the last 5 or 6 years, 100,000 barrels a year would not be 
| very far from a right estimate. 
|) Q. It has been cheaper to buy, than to catch them 7—A. Well, yes. 
| _Q. Is there a large supply of herring on our own coasts ?—A. I ‘think 
that at the present time the largest supply is off our own coasts. 

Q. You told me this morning something about the comparative price 
of akind of herring you called round herring ?—A. Yes, round shore 
herring. 


2888 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What do you mean by round shore herring ?—A. This term is used 
in contradistinction to the term split herring; these are split down the 
belly, and the round are salted just as they come out of the water. 

Q. You have compared with me the price of them in the United States 
and the price here in Halifax; what do you say about that?—A. There 
are very few of them in the Halifax market, and they are asking here 
$4 abarrelforthem. The Halifax round herring differs from the States 
round herring; the gills of the former are taken out and a small part of 
the entrails, and to do this costs about 25 cents a barrel. These her- 
ring are quoted at $4 a barrel; and we calculate to retail them in the 
States at $4; but we do not consider them at all. 

Q. Their price current in Halifax is higher than the price at which 
they can be bought in Gloucester ?—A. It is higher than we can sell 
them at to the retail trade. 

Q. Have your vessels been in the herring business 7—A. Yes, more or 
less. 

Q. Where have they gone for them ?—A. To Newfoundland, the Mag- 
dalen Islands, and Grand Manan. 

Q. Have they ever caught them in Newfoundland ?—A. No. 

Q. Have they gone there prepared to catch them 7—A. No. | 

Q. They have bought them ?—A. They have always carried money | 
there to buy them. | 

Q. How many vessels have you had go to Grand Manan for berring? 
—A. We have always had 2 or 3 go there in winter for them since 1869 _ 
or 1870. I am not sure which, but I think since 1870. } 

Q. Have they bought or caught them there ?—A. They have always |— 
taken from $1,500 to $2,000 in American currency, to get a cargo, with | 
3or4hands. They have carried no fishing gear and they were always | 
supposed to have bought the herring. They always rendered account — 
of them as being bought. | 
_ Q. They went there without preparation to fish 7—A. They bought | 
them undoubtedly. | | 

Q. And they left money behind them ?—A. They carried money, and | 
that they used it on their voyage I have no doubt whatever. | | 

Q. You have no more direct knowledge in this respect ?—A. I have | 
their bills, which come from the men down there, who made out the , 
receipts. | 

Q. What has been the cost of the herring which you have boughtin _ 
Newfoundland and Grand Manan ?—A. When they first went to New- 
foundland, which was, I think, in 1860, to Fortune Bay, they used to pay 
6 shillings or $1.20, in gold, a barrel. We used to have them carry part 
gold and part trade—that is, we used to fit out vessels to go there and 
we used to estimate the price at $1.50 a barrel, and take trade enough 
to amount to $1.50 a barrel, and always gold enough to reach the same — 
figure. We used to use trade if we could, and otherwise we used gold. 

Q. They cost $1.20 a barrel ?—A. That is $1.20 in the first place,and | 
over $2 during the last few years. Last year I think that the price was _ 

2 or $2.50 per barrel—10 or 12 shillings. i 

Q. Have you bought herring which were caught on the United States — 
coast?—A. Yes. a 

Q. How has the quantity which you have purchased there compared ‘ 
with the amount which you bought in Newfoundland and at Grand — 
Manan ?—A. It has beensmallerthan the quantity which we have bought | 
in Newfoundland and at Grand Manan and Magdalen Islands. i 

Q. Have you purchased both frozen and salt herring ?—A. Yes. 


: 


id ? SS  — - 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2889 


Q. You havealso been in the cod-fishing business 7—A. That has been 
the principal part of our fishing. 

Q. If you compared your cod and mackerel fishery, what eapostion 
would you say is cod and what proportion mackerel ?—A. I have the 
figures. Well, the mackerel would be a very small part of it. 

Q. Are the figures on the table which you have put in?—A. Yes. 

Q. About what proportion would be cod, and what mackerel ?—A. 
The cod is over two-thirds of it. 

Q. Which has been the more profitable ?—A. The cod always. 

Q. What do you say about the comparative expediency of fishing for 
cod with fresh or with salt bait on the Grand Banks ?—A. That is a 
pretty bard and difficult question. I can only answer it from our expe- 
rience with our own vessels. 

Q. Lonly want your general idea respecting it?—A. Well, [ think 
that if the vessels do not use fresh bait, aud do not make a practice of 
it, they will do just as well with salt bait; but if part of them used 
fresh bait, the whole of them have to do so; that would be my judg- 
ment. 

Q. I meant to have asked you, before we passed from the herring 
business, whether anything is done in the exportation of herring from 
the United States?—A. We made one shipment, I think. 

Q. Where ?—A. To Gottenburg this last spring. 

Q. Others began the business in 1876?7—A. Yes; the year before. 

Q. Are the herring which are exported caught on the United States 
shore 7—A. They are caught both there and in British waters. I should 
say that one-half of those which are exported are caught in British 
waters. 

Q. We have had some testimony as to the running expenses of ves- 
sels; what does it cost to run cod-fishing vessels that go to Georges 
Bank, by the year; and in the first place during how many months of 
the year are they there ?—A. This varies a great deal; cod-fishing ves- 
sels would probably be for 9 months at Georges Bank, or 8 months 
would perhaps be a fair average. 

Q. What would the running expenses be for a vessel which is there 
- 8or9 months, for the year?—A. Well, I think that our vessels there 
, have cost us on the average $2,300 or $2, 400, not including interest or 

taxes, or, for the larger part of the time, insurance or depreciation. 

Q. You mean money actually paid out?—A. I mean that is the 
amount of the actual bills of the vessel, nothing else. 

Q. What is the yearly expenditure per vessel for anchors ?—A. These 
entail very large bills. 

Q. How much are they on the average ?—A. I do not know, but the 
largest bill in this respect is entailed in the cod fishery at the Georges 

nk. 

' Q. How many anchors would you lose per year ?—A. Well, the num- 

ber varies. Vessels which do not lose more than an anchor a year would 

be considered very fortunate. 

Q. Have you had occasion to purchase any mackerel from a provin- 
cial vessel this summer, caught while fishing off our coast?—A. Yes. 

Q. What was her name, what did she do, and what did you buy ?— 

‘ A. She had been seining, and I think her name was the Harriet. She 

belonged somewhere about Shelburne or Lockport, or somewhere about 
there. She was seining on our shore, and we bought mackerel. 

_Q. Where was this at ?—A. At Gloucester. 

Q. She brought them there ?7—A. Yes, and landed them at our wharf. 

We bought them before she landed them. 


~ 


2890 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. What does an anchor cost?—A. This year they cost six centsa 
pound, and an anchor will average 600 pounds for a vessel, without the 
stock. The price for an anchor has this year been $38, and the price 
has been as high as fifteen cents a pound. Some years the same 
anchor has cost $90. 

Q. That is for the anchor and chain part ?—A. It is for the anchor 
and stock, and for nothing else.. 

@. What does a cable cost ?—A. About $2 a fathom this year. I 
think that a cable of 250 fathoms would cost this year as near $500 as 
could be calculated. 

@. How many cables have you in your vessel?—A. We generally 
have one spring cable of about 250 fathoms in length. 

Q. How often has it to be renewed ?—A. They are not renewed much 
over once in two years. We generally have to buy from 100 to 150 
fathoms of cable every year for a vessel that is following the fishing 
right along. 

By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 

Q. Where are they made?—A. In Boston. They are spun and are 

made of manila. We do not use chains at all. 


By Mr. Foster: . : 


Q. Your business expenses cover the period when there was as well 
as when there was not a duty on fish? You did business previous to, 
during, and subsequent to reciprocity, and since the Treaty of Wash- 
ington, and I want to know whether, in your judgment, if the duty of 
$2 a barrel were reimposed on mackerel coming from the provinces into 
the American market, it would come out of the provincial fishermen or 
out of the people of the United States ?—A. It would come out of the 
provincial fishermen, I should say. 

Q. How near prohibitory would a duty of $2 a barrel, put on all 
grades of mackerel, be found ?—A. I should think it would destroy all 
the profit and make their business unprofitable. It would tend that 
way. 

Q. What would be the effect of a duty of $1a barrel on provincial 


herring ?—A. That would be total prohibition. Herring do not some- | 


times sell in the market at over $2.50 a barrel. 

Q. What has been the effect of admitting herring from the provinces 
under the treaty as to the herring business? To what extent has the 
business of sending herring from the provinces to our market grown 
up since the duty was removed ?—A. I think it has increased. 

Q. Was it very large or was there any of it when the duty was on ?— 
A. I think it was then very small—there was hardly any of it at that 
time. 

Q. Have you vessels engaged in the halibut fishery ?7—A. Yes; but. 
only incidentally. Thevesselsthat fish for cod on George’s Bank always 
bring in more or less of halibut. 

Q. Fresh or salt ?—A. Fresh; the salt halibut comes from the Bank. 

@. This has never with you been an exclusive fishery 7—A. No. 

Q. How many vessels go from Gloucester to catch halibut 7—A. The 
tleet this year, I think, numbered 31 vessels. 

Q. From your own knowledge you do not know where those vessels 
go; but, speaking from report, where have they gone ?—A. Of late 
years they have gone off into deep water off the western edge of the 
Grand Bank and to the southern part of Saint Peters’s and Quereau 
Bank as it falls off toward the gulf. The fishing firms always follow 

f 


| 


EE LS I A SAR 


———t 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2891 


where the vessels fish,in order to know where they go and fo keep 
watch of the voyages. 

Q. Have you known of any considerable number of them going in the 
vicinity of Cape Sable or Seal Island 7—A. I never heard of any going 
there. 

Q. What does it cost to build a fishing-schooner at Gloucester by the 
ton ’—A. I think pro a schooner of 100 tons, old tonnage, would cost 
about $7,000 or $7,2 

Q. Old tonnage is cabanas measurement?—A. 100 tons old tonnage 
would average from 66 to 70 tons register. 

Q. You think it would cost over $70 a ton 7—A. Yes; we built three 
yessels this last season, and I think that they cost us about that. 

Q. What do you include in the cost of the vessel ?—A. Everything, 
exclusive of the fishing-gear—cables, anchors, and all those things. 

Q. Can anybody get this done any cheaper than yourself ?—A. I do 
not know about that. 

Q. No one has more facilities for getting it done cheaper, of course. 
How does the character of the vessels built in Gloucester for the Glou- 
cester fleet compare with the fishing-vessels built in the provinces 7—A. 
The former are better than the latter in every way. 

Q. Explain in what particular ?7—A. They are better built and better 
modeled, and their material is better. 

Q. And what material is so used up here ?—A. I do not know, but it 
is some soft wood or other. I never inquired much aboat it. 

Q. Could you estimate the difference a ton between what you should 
suppose it would cost to build a mackerel-fishing schooner here and 
such cost in Gloucester? I do not mean built here; but suppose a ves- 
sel was built n Gloucester as they are built here, what would this cost 
here ?—A. I do not know. That would be a pretty hard thing to tell. 
I do not think that you could get a man there to build a vessel in that 
way. 

Q. What has been the conditions of fishing towns in Massachusetts, 
aside from Gloucester ?—A. I think their business has decreased. 

Q. Name these towns as they occur to you?—A. I think that Man- 
chester, the town nearest Gloucester, a great many years ago, had from 
12 to 13 vessels which went to the Banks, but now none are owned there. 
Beverly used to have, I think, about 50 vessels, which number is reduced 
to about 26 or 28. Marblehead used to be a very large fishing place; I 
think that at one time from 60 to 70 vessels were owned there; I think 
that originally this was the largest fishing place in Massachusetts ; but 
now its fishing business has almost entirely gone. 

Q. What is Marblehead doing now ?7—A. It has gone into the shore 
‘business. Plymouth used to be a very large fishing place, owning from 
60 to 70 vessels ; but this number now has fallen off down to 20 or 30, 
I think. The business of these towns has decreased all round, with the 
exception of Provincetown, which has held her own; they have there 
made fishing their principal business altogether. I think that Province- 
town has held her own, but all along the ‘other smaller towns have lost 
about all their fishing business, which has become centralized mostly in 
Gloucester. 

-Q. Has the fishing business of Wellfleet increased ?—A. No; she has 
lost her cod-fishing business, and now only follows the mackerel busi- 
ness. 

Q. You mean by fishing business, anything ?—A. Yes; anything in 


_ the shape of fishing. 


_ Q. Both cod and mackerel ?—A. Yes. 


* 


ke. : 


2892 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. The general result is that as Gloucester bas increased the other 
fishing places have decreased ?—A. Yes. 

Q. If you cannot make money in the fishing business in Gloucester, 
is there any place on the continent where it can be so made ?—A. No; 
if it cannot be made there, then it can be so made nowhere. 

Q. You have all the appliances nécessary in this connection?—A. Yes. 

(). And you know your business 7—A. Yes. : 

@. You have said that your vessels have done well up to this year, 
and that sometimes they have made as much as 25 per cent.; and I 
would like you to state more fully the business which your vessels have 
done and the way in which they have made money.—A. We never, 
with my father, went anywhere except on our own shores; and he 
always, I think, from the time he commenced business, made a great 
deal of money ‘in the fishing business; but we only went on our own 
shore exclusively, and have only taken the bay fishery and the mack- 
erel fishery as incidental. We have done very well, for the reason that 
we have been on our own shore when other vessels were in the bay, 
when the bay fishery was followed more largely than is the case at 
present. 

Q. Your firm is undoubtedly the most prosperous and the largest in 
Gloucester ?—A. I would not say that. 

Q. Is there any doubt about it; there is no doubt about it 7—A. We 
are called so. 

Q. Did you have a beother who went out of business a few years 
ago?—A. Yes; he went out in 1865, I think. He was the one who: 
went out of our firmin 1861, when our firm dissolved; he then went 
into business by himself, and was in business in 1862, 1863, and 1864, 
and I think he went out in 1865. 

Q. Was he by himself ?—A. Yes; he was for four years by himself, 
and then he retired altogether. 

Q. I want to know whether you, yourself, would not have been better 
off at the present time if you had followed your brother’s example, and 
retired in 1865?—A. Yes; I would then have been better off to-day. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. What did your brother retire on, or withdraw from business on ?— 
A. When he retired from our own firm ? 

Q. Yes.—A. I think on something like $25,000 or $30, 000, or there- 
abouts. 

(). What share had he ?—A. One-third of the profits of the business. 

Q. Exclusive of vessels ?—A. Yes; he owned part of the vessels, all 
of which were mackerelers, and he took his stock. 

Q. During how many years had he been in the business ?—A. I think 
he went into it in 1853. 

Q. And he retired in 1861 ?—A. From our firm; yes. 

Q. Worth $30,000 or $25,000 ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Your firm owned about twenty vessels 7—A. Yes. 

(). What would be the average price of these vessels 7—A. This year? 


. Well, yes—A. Values have gone down so much that it is almost | 


impossible to select an average value right along; but this year these 
vessels would be worth, perhaps, a little less than $5,000—perhaps 
$4,500 or $4,800. 
Q. All round ?—A. Yes; that would be their average value. 
Q. This would be about $100,000 ?—A. They cost us more. 
Q. Did they cost you $150, 000 ?—A. I think so. 
+ (). I suppose that you have large establishments there besides 7?—A. 
es. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2893 


Q. Wharves, &c.?—A. We have four wharves, 

Q. I suppose you have a quarter of a million invested in them ?—A. 
That would be a large estimate. 

Q. Would $200,000 be a large estimate ?—A. I think they cost us 
nearly that. 

Q. You spoke of a number of vessels engaged in the mackerel busi- 
ness; I understood you to mean that they were exclusively halibuting ?— 
A. Yes; what we call fresh halibuting. 

Q. I understand from the evidence we have had that there are other 
vessels which are engaged partially halibut and partially cod-fishing ?— 
A. Those are vessels which go cod-fishing and catch halibut on their 
voyages, in Bank vessels. 

Q. The number 31 you mentioned does not include these other vessels 
which fish for halibut and cod promiscuously ?—A. No. 

Q. You could not give any idea as to how many are engaged, more or 
less, in halibuting ?—A. Catching them on their trips ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Well, about 100 sail do so. 

Q. You, of course, never went halibating yourself, and you do not 
know where they catch their fish ?—A. I suppose we have accurate 
information on the subject. 

Q. You personally never went on a halibut-fishing voyage 7—A. No; 
save once, when I was a little boy and did not know much about it. 

Q. Mr. Foster asked you a few questions about the losing of anchors, 
and as to whether this ought to be charged to their voyages; George’s 
Bank, I understand, is the place where most of the anchors are lost ?— 
A. Most of the anchors are lost there at certain seasons of the year; 
yes. More are lost there in February and March than is the case any- 
where else. 

Q. And a great many vessels would be therein February and March ?— 
A. Yes; from 100 tu 125 sail would then be there. 

Q. And when they lose anchors they lose cables too?—A. You can- 


not lose an anchor unless you lose some cable, of course, with it. 


Q. Are not more lost oa George’s Bank than in all the rest of the fish- 


' -eries put together ?—A. No. 


Q. Where else are they lost so largely ?—A. On the Grand Banks; 
we also lose them very largely in the bay. 
' Q. Whereabouts is this the case in the bay ?—A. We lose them around 
the Magdalen Islands, where our vessels usually fish. 

Q. You were speaking of a vessel] from which you bought some mack- 
erel this year?—A. Yes. 

Q. What is her name ?—A. I am about sure that it is the Harriet. 

‘a You do not know, of course, where they caught these fish ?—A. 

;,it was south off the coast of Long Island, and off that way. 

Q ‘How do you know that 7?—A. The master told meso. I bought 
them myself. — 

Q. Where is she registered ?—A. In the provinces. 

Q. Did she take these fish off shore ?—A. She took them off Long Island, 
She'went south fishing; she came to my wharf to be fitted out. 

Q. You do mean to say that she caught them near the shore ?—A. No; 
I think she got them from 8 to 10 miles from the shore, where our ves- 
sels usually fish. 

Q. You have expressed an opinion about the duty; are you a pro- 
tectionist or a free trader ?—A. I am, protectionist. 

Q. Is the free admission of fish into the United States an injury to 


_ your fishermen ?—A. Yes; I think that it is. 


2894 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


(). Why is it so?—A. I think that it develops the Nova Scotian fish- 
ery, and makes for us a rival here. 

Q. That is a benefit to us; but why is it an injury to you ?—A. Be- 
cause if your fishery is kept down, the men engaged in it will come up 
from the provinces and go in our vessels. I think that the larger part 
of your best skippers learned their-trade in American vessels. 

Q. Is that the only injury itis to you?—A. Well, the only injuary— 
yes; only to have arival in business is always aninjury. If a man has 
a clear field, he always does better than if he has a rival. 

Q. Why? Does this affect the price at all?—A. What do you mean 
by price ? 

Q. The price you obtain for your fish when you sell them ?—A. Well, 
not much. I do not know that it affects the price a great deal. 

Q. Then it does you no injury ?—A. Yes; if it builds up an oppo- 
sition trade, it has such an effect. 

Q. How can it, if you get the same prices the while?—A. Yes; but 
then we have to catch more fish. 

Q. The free admission of fish does not effect the catch ?—A. Cer- 
tainly it does. If you increase the product of fish in any particular di- 
rection, of course it has that effect. 

Q. I cannot see how the free admission of fish can affect your catch ?7— 
A. For instance, we go to the Grand Banks, and you now fit out vessels 
to go there; and to all the places where our fishermen go, yours also 
go. 

Q. As to vessels mackerel-fishing, we are withdrawing from it ?—A., 
You have built up a mackerel-fishing fleet ? 

Q. The evidence is the other way ?—A. During reciprocity, for in- 
stance, quite a large fleet of vessels was built up along Lunenburg and 
about there; and when the Reciprocity Treaty was abrogated, I think 
that quite a number of vessels were left on the stocks, if I am not mis- 
taken, and were not built and finished for one or two years afterwards, 
though when they were commenced they were intended to be fishing- 
vessels. ; 

Q. You are giving your impressions, I suppose; you do not profess 
to intimate that you know this to have been the case?—A. Well, [ know 
it as wellas I know Nova Scotia to be down here. 

Q. Were you then there present?—A. Parties that were there told 
me of it. 

Q. You have it from hearsay ay Parties owning them, or who were 
having them built, told me_so. 

Q. Iam speaking of mackerel-fishing vessels ; and the evidence is to 
the effect that our mackerel-fishing fleet instead of increasing has been 
decreasing in number ?—A. That is the case everywhere; it is general. 

Q. Is the number diminishing very largely ?—A. Yes; it is so on our 
own coast. 

Q. So the free admission of fish does not develop our fisheries in that 
respect; 10 or 12 years ago we had 30 or 40 vessels from Prince Ed- 
ward Island engaged more or less in the fisheries, and now we have 
hardly any vessels so engaged; that seems to point the conclusion in 
oe opposite direction ?—A. That i is because the business is not profit- 
able. 

Q. But, so far from that being the case, the business has doubled and 
quadrupled 10 or 20 times over ?—A. The mackerel business ? 

Q. Yes.—A. Where? 

Q. We have 20 times the capital engaged in it now than was the case 


| 
| 
= 


. 


1% 


ac 5 dae 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2895 


10 years ago on Prince Edward Island?—A. Well, it requires 10 or 20 
times the capital to get the same amount. 

Q. Do I understand you to state that the free admission of fish caught 
in British waters into your markets does not affect the price ?—A. I 
do not think that it affects the price to any extent; indeed I do not 
think that it does so at all. I do not think that this affects the price a 

ain. 
iy You differ a good deal from most of the witnesses we have heard.— 
A. I will tell you why I think so. It is because the price for consumer 
does not change at all. I do not believe that the price of mackerel, to 
the man who eats them, has changed a cent for the last ten years. I 
consider that the price of mackerel depends to a great degree on the 
manipulators—the dealers in them. Ido not think that the question of 
duty on or duty off makes one fraction of difference as to the price; 
this is, however, influenced by many things. If you took the duty off 
one year and put it on again the next year, 1 do not think that it would 
alter the price one fraction, though some other influence might come in 
and doit. If there was a change in this respect every year, I do not 
think that it would affect the price one grain. We took the duty off 
potatoes, which were brought from Prince Edward Island, for instance, 
during reciprocity, and instead of having cheap potatoes in consequence 
of this, during that ten years potatoes were higher in the provinces and 
all over the States than was previously the case. I think they were 
sold here in the provinces at the rate of $1 a bushel. 

Q. What is your opinion concerning the price of mackerel in this 
regard 7—A. It is that a duty would not change the price one fraction. 

Q. I understand you to mean that if the catch was one-half below 
the average, and if the demand could not be supplied by the catch at 
all, or if, putting the case in an extreme light, the catch fell to one- 
eighth, and there was not enough fish to meet the demand, still the 
price would remain the same.—A. It would not then vary save very 
little. We have an illustration of it this year. Now, the catch of 
mackerel this year has been smaller, I think, than has been the case for 
a great many years. The price of No. 2 mackerel, for instance, for a 
time went up to $10 and $11 a barrel. They were bought up, and the 
price the fishermen asked for them was given, but still the consumption 


’ almost stopped and decreased with no catch on the market; and I have 


known a man with 20 or 30 barrels on the market, when I have some- 
times bought 10,000 barrels in one day, hunting round for a buyer. 

Q. Was not the year 1874 a year remarkable for a very large catch ?— 
A. In 1874 there was an average catch, I think. It was nothing more 
than an average, [ think. If Lam not mistaken, the catch for 1872 and 
1878 was small. 

- Do you remember it sufficiently to state whether this was the 
case or not?—A. My impression is that there was about an average 
catch in 1874. 

(). We have the evidence of several witnesses who state that the 
catch that year was very large.—A. Still it was large, compared with 
the catch of 1875; but taking the catches for a series of years, this was 
not the case. 

Q. How was it in 1873?—A. In 1872 and 1873 the catch was small 
compared with that of 1870. 

Q. It was larger in 1874 than it was for the year immediately pre- 
Sing 7—A. Yes. 

_Q. How were prices that year ?—A. In 1874 prices were abont fair. 

Q. Are you sure of that?—A. Yes. 


2896 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I know that the catch for Prince Edward Island was very large 
that year, with very low prices.—A. Well, the island fish are poor fish. 

Q. That may be, but that is not the question at all; I am asking you 
whether the catch was large that year or the price small?—A. They 
mostly all say that the catch in 1870 was the largest catch but one that 
we ever had, and the price that year was the largest we have had; you 
cannot form a calculation that will work uniformly from year to year. 

Q. I understand your evidence to be that no matter what the catch is, 
the price will remain about the same ?—A. No; I did not say that. 

Q. What did you say ?—A. In 1870 we had the largest catch but one 
which we ever had, I think, in Massachusetts; it numbered, I think, 
318,000 barrels, and No. 1 mackerel ruled that year, I think, at $20 a 


barrel; while in the next year, 1871, there was about an average catch, © 


and yet the price was then from $4 to $5 lower than it was in 1870, with 
a very large catch; and in 1872 and 1873 there was a small catch, if I 
mistake not, and I think that the prices were that year about the same. 
They did not vary, save very little, from 1872. 

Q. The catch does affect the price, in your opinion?—A. I say it 
does some; but then I say there are a great many things which influ- 
ence the price, such as the manipulations of operators, and all those 
things. 

Q. Is the rise or fall in the price more owing to the manipulation of 
operatious than to other causes ?—A. I do not say that; but all these 
things operate. ‘ 


Q. To what extent do you think that the catch affects the price; is — 
not the price of mackerel, like that of every other article, governed by | 


the laws of supply and demand; if the supply fails, does not the price | 


go up ?—A. That would be the case if the selling price was always so 


governed ; that would be the case if the price to the consumer was al- | 
ways governed by the selling price; but this is not so in the case of 


mackerel. 
Q. You say then that the price to the consumer always remains the 


same ?—A. The price to the man who eats them does not vary, save | 


very little. 


Q. That is not affected by the catch at all, in your opinion; the price | 
to the consumer remains the same ?—A. It has been the same for the | 


last ten years. 
Q. You think so?—A. I know so. 


Q. You do not know it; your evidence does not agree with other evi- | 


dence.—A. I know that is so, because I have had experience .in the 
trade. 


Q. You say that the price is uniform, and thet, in your opinion, the | 


catch is not affected by it?—A. The catch does not affect the price 
which the consumer pays; that has not affected it one fraction during 
the last ten years. I mean this is the case as regards the man who 
eats and buys them. 

Q. The catch, in your opinion, would not affect that price ?—A. It has 
not done so during the last ten years. 

Q. Would it do so, in the course of trade, in a long period of time !— 


A. If competition was sharp, it might reach that point, but it has not © 


done so as yet. 

Q. If the catch was reduced to one-eighth, would the consumer, in 
your opinion, then pay exactly the same for his mackerel which he would 
pay were it otherwise ?—A. They would not pay any more for them. 

Q. He would pay the same ?—A. I think so; the price is generally 
fixed at the highest price that will be paid. 


——_ 


nae a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2897 


Q. The demand for fresh mackerel has increased a good deal of late 
years ?—A. It doubles and quadruples every year. 

Q. A considerable portion of the catch on the American slpre is ‘solid 
in the fresh state ?—A. Well, yes; I should say that a larg¢ portion of 
it is so sold, and it is increasing. 

Q. And that necessarily opens the door for the sale of salt mackerel ?— 
A. I think it shuts the door, 

Q. Do you think that the consumption of fresh fish takes place in the 
States in the West ?—A. No; it does not go West. 

Q. I thought you said fresh fish were carried as far as California ?— 
A. Yes, fresh sea-fish. 

Q. That is what I am talking of, fresh mackerel; it is a sea-fish?—A.- 
Yes. 
- Q. Is its consumption spreading all along the railways?—A. Yes. 

Q. And through all the towns?—A. Yes; at certain seasons of the 
year. 

Q. The necessary result is that this takes up a portion of the catch on 

the American coast. You said a large portion of it was consumed in 


' the fresh state ?—A. Well, it is. You mean to say that the catch of 


fresh mackerel, which is a large portion of the whole catch, affects the 
' catch of fish off the American coast. 

Q. I understood you to say that a large portion of the catch is eon- 
‘ sumed in the fresh state ?—A. Yes; it is, however, not the greater, but 
/alarge part of the catch which is so consumed. 

Q. Was this statement which you have put in made up by you per- 
) sonally ?—A. It was made up by my brother. 
@. Is he in your firm now ?—A. Yes. 
Q. What is his name ?—A. John J. 
Q. Is this his handwriting ?—A. No. 
_ Q. Is that the handwriting of Mr. Low, who was here the other 
iday ?—A. Yes. 
_ @. Then it was not made up by your brother, but by Mr. Low ?—A. 
'No; that is a copy of what was made up by my brother. I do not know 


| {if have the original in my pocket, but I have it all on one sheet. 


| Q. Is this the form in which your brother made it up ?—A. Yes. I 
; want to keep the other one. 
Q. You do not know how he got at the values, do you?—A. They 
‘are taken from the stocks of fishing- vessels ; that is, when the stock of 
\the trip is netted; that is, deducting the packing and other expenses. 
‘This is the net stock which is divided among the crew and owners. 
Q. This is the valuation at which you settle with the crew ?—A. Yes; 
\that is what is divided among the owners and crew. 
_ Q. This does not purport to be the value at which the fish were after- 
‘ward sold in the market 7—A. That is part of the price we would obtain 
‘in the market as dealers. 
(). This does not purport to be the price at which you sold the fish ?— 
A. Not as dealers; no. 
Q. As Pew & Sons ?—A. It is the price at which the fish would be sold 
atif they were sold at the time to a person outside. 
, It does not include the packing-out at all 7—A. No. 
' Q. You afterwards pack the fish and sell them in the market?—A 


They are packed and all that is taken out. 

Q.. I understand that when a vessel comes in the vessel packs off and 
then settles with the men, and these are the values at which such settle- 
nents were made 7—A. Yes. 

Q. The fish are afterwards placed on the market; and this settlement 


182 F 


2898 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


does not show what you got for them ?—A. I do not know that it does, 
as 

asf That: tpu feel any satisfaction in drawing the distinction between 
mostly all $12 that case and as dealers, do so.—A. There is a marked 
va o-ucuun between these two positions. 

Q. Is the packing out included in this statement 7—A. No. 

@. How could it come out if this is the valuation which you settled 
with the men; I understand that this does not represent in the slightest 
degree what you got for the fish, but that it represents the fixed figures 
at which you settled with the crews, and does not embrace the packing 
out at all, or what you got for the fish; am I right in making that as- 
sumption 7—A. No; it is an assumption, just as you say. 

Q. Then I am right in it?—A. It is an assumption, because you say 
it is the price of settlement. 

Q. Am [right in saying that you settled with the crew at that price ?— 
A. Yes; of course. 

Q. Where, then, am I wrong in that assumption ?—A. You say that 
is the price which we would fix, and at which we would settle with the 
crew, without regard to anything we got; and I say, in that respect, it 
would not have any regard to what we got in our separate business, as 
dealers and retailers; it relates to the packing of the trip, the selling 
of it wholesale, and the paying of the crew, the highest wholesale price 
which the fish would bring at time, if sold to anybody, per trip. We 
then take the trip and sell it at the price which would be brought by 
the disposal of it in small packages to different parties in the retail 
trade; this is a separate business. 

Q. This represents, of course, the price at which you settled with the 
crew for the mackerel 7?—A. Yes. 


Q. And it is not the price at which you sold the mackerel in the mar- 


ket ?—A. Not as a retailer or dealer. 

Q. As Pew & Sons, carrying on the fishing business in Gloucester, this 
does not represent the money received for mackerel when sold 7—A. As 
dealers, no; there is a distinction between the two positions. You 


judge it as if we settled with the crew at one price and obtained another: 


price, thereby acting dishonestly. 

Q. Not at all.—A. It would be so understood. 

Q. Where would the dishonesty le?—A. You say that this is the 
price you fixed and at which you settled with the crew, without regard 
to the price you got; and unless that was explained the men would say 
we did not obtain the price we ought to have secured; and I want the 
matter set right. 

@. Some of these are mere estimates 7—A. They are actual figures. 

@. Some of them are mere estimates ?—A. Only one of them is an 
estimate on the different numbers; the aggregate number is correct. 

Q. Can you tell me the length of time each of these vessels was in 
the bay, and their length of time in the shore-fishing ?—A. Well, the 
average 

Q. Hold; I do not want the average; you have given a list of ves- 
sels, 5 in number, which in 1870 were in the bay, and of 8, which were 
the same year fishing on your shore, and I desire to ascertain the exact 
time which was spent by these 8 vessels on your shore ?—A. It would 
be about the same—about 4 months. 


Q. You say generally, about; was the time occupied in the bay about) _ 


the same as was the case on your shore ?—A. Certainly. 


Q. What was the tonnage of these 8, compared with these 5 ves-| 


sels 7A. It was about the same ; they were, perhaps, the same ves- 


or 


eet 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2899 


sels which went one year on our shore and the next year into the bay, 
changing their voyage. They were the same vessels precisely ; some 
fished on our shore one year and the next year in the bay. 

(). Sometimes vessels going into the bay make very short trips, and at 
other times this is not the case; there is no particular average for their 
trips in the bay?—A. Of late years the mackerel fishery has been 
prosecuted longer on our shore than was previously the case ; this has 
been so siuce we commenced seining. The vessels during this period 
have gone south to fish. 

Q. Would that be about an average of the trips in the bay and on 
your shore?—A. Yes; I think that is the exact time which they are 
usually gone. 

Q. Others make 3 trips ?—A. I should include all the trips in the one. 

Q. You are not able to name the actual vessels which went, and the 
actual period of time for which they were gone ?—A. No; not now. 

~ Q. Could you do so?—A. Yes. 
’ Q. Within a reasonable time ?—A. I could do so in a week’s time. 

Q. It was during the war you made the highest interest on your in- 
vestment 7—A. Yes. ; 

Q. That was during the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. During the latter 
part of it. 

Q. Is it customary to charter vessels in Gloucester ?—A. It is not a- 
general custom; it is done occasionally. 
Q. Have you ever done it ?—A. Yes, I have chartered vessels. 
Q. From Gloucester ?—A. From Gloucester people. 
Q. Fishing-vessels ?—A. Yes. 
Q. What did you pay per month 7—A. When we chartered a vessel, 
which was some time ago, I think we paid $250 a month. . 
Q. Did you get the vessel already fitted out for that sum ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Is that chartering a usual or an unusual thing ?—A. It is an un- 
) usual thing. 
~Q. Very unusual?—A. It is not customary; it is not the general 
| practice. . 
Q. That was a fishing-vessel you chartered ?—A. I think fora fishing 
) Voyage. I have chartered herring vessels to go to Newfoundland. 
Q. You chartered vessels to go down and buy frozen herring in New- 
) foundland ?—A. To go in winter. 
Q. Tam speaking of mackerel-fishing. Do you know of any vessel 
being chartered for that fishing ?—A. Yes, a vessel has been chartered 
this summer. 
Q. But excepting that vessel, have vessels been so chartered during 
‘the last ten years ?—A. They are chartered more or less every year. 
Q. For mackerel-fishing ?—A. Yes. 
Q. That system has been kept up?—A. It is not a common practice, 
but out of the 300 or 400 vessels, some years perhaps three or four would 
/be chartered and other years one or two; it is a small number. 
Q. When you were fishing for herring at Newfoundland and Grand 
Manan, how did you enter them in your market ?—A. As merchandise. 
Q. As American herring ?—A. No; we went under a register, and 
entered them as British products. 
Q. Did you pay any duty on them ?—A. No; fresh fish for immediate 
consumption are admitted duty free always. 
‘Q. When you spoke of paying $250 per month for the charter of a 
vessel, did you mean it to apply to the winter or summer season ?—A. 
a summer season for mackerel. 


| a ae 


—_ 


2900 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 

Q. Have you ever carried on herring-fishing yourself on the southern 
coast of Newfoundland 7—A. No; vessels we own have gone there. 

@. When did you commence the business of sending them there for 
herring?—A. In 1860 or 1861 ; 1860, I think. 

Q. In what month did you send them ?—A. They start about the 
last of November and come back as quickly as possible, usually arriving 
home in the early part of February. 

Q. Between 1860 and the present time, how many vessels, on an aver- 
age, have you been in the habit of sending there every winter ?—A, 
Usually two or three every year, right along from year to year. 

Q. Have any of your vessels taken nets to catch herring ?—A. Never. 

Q. You employed the people to catch herring for them?—A. We | 
bought them from the people. | 

Q. Those are frozen herring you refer to?—A. They were bought, 
as I understand, and the vessels froze them. 

Q. What do you do with the herring ?—A. They take them to New | 
York and sell them retail in the markets as fish-food, and some are sold | 
for bait. Some are also sent to Philadelphia and sold for food. 

Q. What proportion do you say goes to New York—nearly the | 
whole?—A. I should say New York and Philadelphia, on an average, | 
take two-thirds of them—the larger part of them. 

Q. What did you pay the people of Newfoundland for herring last | 
winter ?—A. I think up to 6, 8,10, and 12 shillings; the prices went up, 
for herring was scarce. Not more than two-thirds of the vessels got 
loads, consequently they forced the prices up to $2.50 per barrel. 

Q. Haveyou not bought them as lowas 50centsand 75cents a barrel ?— 
A. They have never been bought so low. The first year the American 
vessels went there they were bought for 3 shillings or 4 shillings. | 

Q. What is the lowest price paid by you ?7—A. One dollar—6 shillings. | 

Q. As far back as 1860; are you sure about that?—A. Yes; pretty | 
clear on it. 

Q. The lowest price you paid was $1?—A. Yes; I am clear about | 
that. 

Q. You have heard of others having paid 80 cents ?—A. The first 
year the business was started I think they were bought as low as 80 
cents; as soon as American vessels commenced to go there the price 
went up to $1 and $1.20. ] 

@. Has it been a profitable trade with you?—A. Profitable at the 
early part; unprofitable at the last. 

Q. But still you keep sending the same number of vessels ?—A. a 
man does what he has usually been doing. 

Q. Have any of your vessels fishing on the Grand Banks gone into — 
Newfoundland for bait?—A. Yes; they have made a practice of late | © 
years to go in. | 

Q. When did they commence that practice?—A. My impression is, | 
in either 1874 or 1875. I am not certain which year, but three or four 
years ago. 

(. The difference between the twenty vessels and those that have 
gone to the bay, have been employed on the Banks cod-fishing !—A., 
Mostly off our own shores, on the Georges, cod-fishing. 

Q. How many have been on the Grand Bank ?—A. I think the first 
vessel I had on the Grand Bank was in 1870 or 1871. We have gone) 
from one vessel up to 6, which number we have there this year. 

Q. I believe you said that cod- fishing with you had been, on the whole, | 
very prosperous ?—A. It has been the best part of our business. 


| 
| 
| 


“AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2901 


Q. Have you any bills or accounts with you as to what you paid for 
bait on the coast of Newfoundland ?—A. No. 

Q. How many times on an average each year would a vessel go in for 
bait ?—A. I should say that some of our vessels would go in once and 
others three times in one trip. I should think they would go in almost 
three times on an average. 

 Q,. What bait have they got?—A. Herring, squid, and I am not sure 
- whether they got caplin or not. 
Q. Can you say as to what was the amount paid by each vessel for, 
' bait for the year ?—A. It would be an estimate. I have the drafts with 
me that I paid this year. 

Q. Have you made up an average ?—A. No. 

| Q,. Judging from your knowledge, can you approximate the amount ? 
| —A. I think Ican. I should say we paid from $2,000 to $2,500 this 
\ present year. 

, Q. Was that for baiting vessels?—A. Yes. 

» Q. Was that all paid for bait or. did it include other articles ?—z 
The large part of it was for bait. 

' Q. What proportion?—A, There is only an amount paid for light-dues 
at Newfoundland. 

' Q. Were there any other supplies purchased by you?—A. No; we 
» always fit out the vessels ourselves with the necessary supplies. 

_ Q. Do you buy everything for cash 7—A. Always for cash. 
|  Q. You will barter anything ?—A. Never. They draw sight drafts on. 


By Mr. Davies: 


| Q,. 1 think you said you did not think the British Asverieg were of any 
-- value ?—A. I think they are of very little value. 

| Q. Then if you were excluded from the bay, it would be of little mo- 
_)ment to you ee Yes, if your people were kept from our shores and 
h markets. 
_| Q. Without considering the question of market; if American fisher- 
)men were excluded from the bay, it would be very little injury to them ?— 
' A. It would be very little. 
| Q. Do you wish that to go on record as your opinion ?—A. Yes. 
| Q. Can you then explain the previous anxiety displayed by them to 
| get the inshore fishery in the bay ?—A. No; that is something I should 
like somebody else to explain. Inever could understand why our people 
‘wanted it. In 1863, 1864, and 1865, which were the most prosperous 
| years in the bay and when our vessels did the best they ever did there, 
our vessels on our own shores could make three dollars where they made 
‘two dollars in the bay; and yet the men wanted to go in the bay. They 
always used to go ashore at Prince Edward Island, have a dance and a 
good time. 

Q. You think it was due to the attractions of the island?—A. I think so. 
| Q. The loss on the voyage in 1876 you place in the statement at $369 ?— 

A. That is a statement of the trip copied from the book. 

By Mr. Foster : 

| Q. Was the license fee of $1 per ton, in your judgment, as much as 
| amackerelman going into the Bay of St. Lawrence could afford to pay 
\ ‘for the privilege of the inshore fishery in the best years?—A. I think it 
was more. 

Q. You have been asked as to the longest of the trips. You have 
given the results in the bay and the results on the shore from 1870 to 
1876 inclusive. I want to know whether this represents the case of 
vessels which fish through the whole mackerel season in the respective 


2902 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


places ?—A. Yes; it does. There are vessels that were fishing alto- 
gether on the shore, and vessels that were in the bay all the time they 
were mackereling, with the exception of last year. 

@. Does it represent from June to October in the bay, and whatever 
the length of the season was on our own shore ?—A. Yes; the time 
they were in the bay, and the length of the season on our shore. Per- 
haps ‘the vessels did not go in the bay till July. It has only been two 
or three years since the time has varied on our shore and in the bay. 

Q. You did not put vessels which had fished four or five months on 
our shore against vessels which had been in the bay for 60 days ?—A., 
No; it represents the whole bay fishery of the vessels. 

Q. In aes seven years you have had from Bay St. Lawrence 
$77,995.22 worth of mackerel, and from our shore $271,333.54 worth ?— 
Bee Yes. 

Q. You have been asked about the settlement with the sharesmen at 
the end of the mackerel voyage. How is the price at which the mack- 
erel is taken by your firm determined ?—A It is determined by the 
highest market price paid at the day of settlement. 

Q. If there is any dispute about it, how do you get at the market 
price ?—A. We always take the highest price paid; it is determined by 
the sales at the place. 

Q. Do you not have a chance to cheat the captain and sharesmen ?— 
A. No. 

Q. Why not?—A. Because it is publicly known what the sales are. 

Q. The right of packing is reserved by your firm ?—A. The prices are 
made after they are packed. 

Q. Reserving the right of packing to your firm, if your firm cannot 
give as much for the mackerel when packed as others will, have you 
any right to give only part of the price?—A. No; we are compelled to 
give the market price. When one master wishes to keep a trip in view 
of an advancing market, then in that case the judges decide what the 
trip should be valued at on the day the fish were ready for sale, and the 
crew will be settled with at that rate. If the market is dull and the 
crew insist on a settlement, the owner has the privilege of taking the 
crew’s half, putting them on the market and selling them, and at that 
price the crew will be settled with. { 

Q. In regard to bay and shore mackerel, how have they compared 
for two years past ?—A. Ever since I can remember, with the exception 
of two or three years, the shore mackerel have always been the best 
and brought the highest price. Those two or three years were excep- 
tional, and bay mackerel then brought a higher price. 

Q. You are a mackerel buyer?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you bought mackerel in the provinces ?—A. I have bought 
provincial mackerel, but'not in the provinces. 

Q. When there was a duty on provincial mackerel, and a man bought 
mackerel at Halifax, would he have to pay the price ‘of that same mack- 
erel in the United States, or would you pay $2 less?—A. You would 
always buy at $2 per barrel less. 

Q. Have you bought any mackerel since you have been here 7—A. I 
have tried to buy some. 

Q. As to this matter of the corner-grocery prices of mackerel, you* 
say that the retail price to the man who eats mackerel has not varied 
for the year, however the price in the market has fluctuaged ?—A, It: 
has not varied for mackerel or codfish, materially. 

Q. A man who wants to buy mackerel for his family does not buy a a 
barrel ?—A. Perhaps one or two pounds, or one or two fish. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2903 


Q. And the retail price for that quantity is still the same?—A. Yes. 
«. I suppose if I buy a salt codfish to make fish-balls for my family 
it will stay at the same price to me for a good many years, notwith- 
standing extreme fluctuations in the market ?—A. It will hardly vary. 
Q. The retailer may make or lose money 7—A. The jobber generally 
gets the difference. 
Q. The man selling me cannot raise the price on me much, unless 
there is a long-continued advance 7—A. It would not make much differ- 
, ence on two pounds of fish whether there was an advance of one or two 
| dollars per barrel. 
. Then if the price goes down what is the effect to the retailer?—A. 
| He does not make as much money. 
Q. Mr. Davies, I think I understood you say that you had vessels 
which went fishing for halibut and cod indiscriminately—catching them 
| promiscuously. Explain.—A. I meant that we have 20 vessels which 
go fishing for halibut exclusively ; those are what we call fresh-halibut 
| vessels. We have vessels which go to the Georges for salt codfish, and 

_ the bulk of those in pursuing their salt-fish voyages will get 10, 8, 5, 6, 
| 3, or 100 or 200 pounds of halibut, and they bring them home fresh. 

|  Q. No great part of the vessels going to the Georges fish for halibut 

) as well as cod 7?—A. A very small part. I have vessels which have not 

| got a single halibut. 

/  Q. When you spoke of paying $250 a month for chartering a vessel, 

| you spoke of her being all fitted out. Did you mean fitted out with 

| hooks and lines and seines?—A. No; I had reference to the vessel only. 
| Q. You did not include outfit ?—A. No. 

| By Mr. Davies: 

| Q. Did I understand you to say that this statement of a voyage is 

) copied from the record in your books of an actual voyage ?—A. Yes. 
| Q. Have you a similar account opened for each schooner in your 

' books?—A. Yes. 
| Q. That represents the charges against the trip; not only the marine 
| slip, but painting, calking, and supplying it with anchors ?—A. Yes, 

against that voyage; we want those things. 

Q. You don’t presume tosay that those are properly chargeable against 
the quantity of mackerel taken on that trip?—A. Yes; they are charges 
that come out of the trip, that are incidental to that trip. They ought 
to be larger. ; 
|| Q. Why ?—A. Because the vessel had been in the winter to New- 
|| foundland, in the spring to the West Indies, and was ready to go ona 
| fishing voyage. 
| .Q. Among the items, $162 is charged for duck ?—A. That would pro- 
|) Dably be for a stay-sail. 
| Q. And fairly chargeable against one trip ?—A. Certainly, the vessel 
| would have to have it. 
+}; Q. There is sail-making, $194 ?—A. Yes. 
| Q. .A spar-making bill, $8. Do you think these charges fairly represent 
| the charges against a vessel for the trip?—A. They vary.somewhat. 
| | Those are actual charges made against the vessel on that trip. 

, Q. Would not the account be made up at the end of the year?—A, 
The account is made up for the voyage. There might be in the sail- 
' maker’s bill some charges which ought to go in the spring trip, and 
Some expenses paid in another year should be charged against this trip. 
‘Phey vary a little always. 

_ Q. Then it does not represent truly the charges that ought to be 


a. 
| 
| 


By at, ) 
\ = 


2904 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


against this trip to see whether the trip was bona fide a profit or loss ?— 
A. No, because they might be greater or less. 

Q. In your capacity as dealer you make a profit on the packing 
out 7—A. Yes. 

Q. So, though there is nominally loss, yet practically you did not 
sustain a loss?—A. Yes, we did. We packed out on that trip 167 
barrels. If you find the packing charge, it is, 1 think, $175, and we 
could not possibly make more than $30 or $40 out of the packing. 

Q. From the other trips made during the year the charges against the 


vessel would be reduced, and consequently at the end of the year the 


result might show a profit?—A. Against the trip to Newfoundland ~ 


there was. charged a quantity of duck, and I know we had two sails 
that were used in the bay trips. Part of the sail-maker’s account 
should go against the bay trip. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. There seem to be $1,245.68 charged on the debit side of this 
account, and $661.94 as an offset for certain items, though they are not 
carried out. That was the actual cost of the articles ?—A. The figures 
were taken from my books, under my direction. 

Q. That account for each vessel is kept in order that you may know 
how your business is going on?—A. Yes. 

Q. The suggestion has been made that it does not accurately repre- 
sent the precise results of the particular voyages, because some 
expenses are charged here which would not always be charged, and of 
course that is true. But how much is the variation? Run your eyes 
over the items, and let us know to what extent the amount would be 
likely to vary, taking a number of years?—A, This account ought to 
be larger. 

Q. Explain what you mean.—A. I mean to say that the vessel was 
partly fitted for the trip when she went in. For instance, she was 
painted on deck, and her rigging was in perfect order, and she had part 
of her stores on board, which had been paid for on preceding voyages. 
This account is a smaller account than it would actually be if the 
vessel had not gone previously anywhere else. 

Q. If Mr. Davies will send any body to Gloucester, he can have 
access to examine your books?—A. Yes; and I shall be very glad if he 
will come and take some shares in our vessels. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. You have mentioned the year 1870 as one of very high prices for 
mackerel and at the same time a very large catch ?—A. Yes. 

Q. In 1871 prices were exceedingly low 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know that 1871 was the year when the Washington Treaty 
was made? Do you think that would have any effect in reducing the 
prices ?7—A. Not a great deal. 

Q. Your opinion is that notwithstanding the large supply of fish that 
came in in 1870, and the readmission of Canadian fish provided for in 
the treaty, it did not really affect the change in the price ?—A. No; L 
lay it altogether to speculation in the article. I know that, because we 
got very badly bitten. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. What was the date of the break in the prices ?—A. They were car- 
ried along till about April or May, 1871. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


- 


Q. Mr. Hall told us that the prices broke in December, 1870 ?—A. We 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2905 


earried that year 50,000 barrels of mackerel and held them right along 
at the high prices—at the prices they were nominally on the market ; 
but no sales were made after January or February. 

Q. Did you not expect the prices to fall when British fish were ad- 
mitted ?—A. I did not consider the British fish at all. 


By Mr. Dana: 

Q. In keeping an account for a vessel either by the trip or month, you 
charge to that month or that trip the expense that has been incurred 
within that period ; of course, the benefit may extend over the next 
- trip ?—A. Yes. 

Q. For instance, in this account the spar-maker’s bill is very small, 
while the sail-maker’s bill is rather large; in the next trip the accounts 
might be reversed ?—A. The accounts of our other vessels all through 
the whole year, and the profit or loss on the vessel, will not be deter- 
mined till the end of the year. This, however, was a vessel of which 
the master owned half, and he had his voyage always made up when it 
was completed, whether from the Banks or Newfoundland. 

Q. In keeping an account of a vessel, it would be difficult and too 
much a matter of speculation to distribute the cost of a jib or jib-boom 
over two or three trips, and calculate the percentage 7—A. Yes. 

Q. To keep such an account would be an impossibility 7—A. It would 
be very difficult. 

Q. So you charge to each trip the expenses incurred on that trip 7— 
A. We usually go over the debit and credit accounts as they stand in 
the ledger about three times a year. There is no settlement made, but 
we ascertain the condition of the vessels, for instance, in May, August, 
and October, and we take that into account in our future calculations. 

Q. You make those inquiries for your own benefit ?—A. Yes; in the 
management of our business. 


By Mr. Foster : 
Q. Did you look over Major Low’s account of Pharsalia ?—A. No. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 

Q. In regard to the register of vessels and ownership, I did not quite 
understand you. For instance, a corporation and partnership, as you 
are, you are obliged to have your vessels owned by individuals, in order 
to have them’ registered 7—A. The partnership business is a business 
where we are on equal terms. The vessels we own are registered by us 
as owners. 

Q. Do you own them individually ?—A. We each own parts of differ- 
ent vessels. All three own parts in the same vessel; but my father 
Owns more vessels than I do, and I own more vessels than my brother. 
_ Q. I thought they were owned separately. The company owns them, 
but they are registered by the individual partners ?—A. The company 
does not own them as a company, but they are owned by us as indi- * 
viduals. 

Q. The register is in individual names ?—A. Just as they are owned. 
The register shows the owners. 


By Mr. Davies: 

'Q. Do licensed fishing-vessels require to enter at the custom-house, 
or are they exempt ?—A. They do not require to enter and clear after 
they are licensed, unless they are doing foreign trade. 

- Q. When they confine themselves to legitimate fishing they are not 
Tequired to enter or clear ?—A. No. 


= 
ae 


a. ae 


2906 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Is there any difference in the cost of building the same vessel in 
your port and in the ports of the provinces?--A. No. I should think 
it will cost fully as much, and perhaps more, to build in the provinces 
as good a ship as we build. It will cost fully as much, at any rate. 

Q. In regard to halibut-fishing by cod vessels. Are those halibut 
caught on their way to fish for cod, or do they fish specially for them ?— 
A. No. 

Q. You spoke in regard to salting halibut; do you often salt them ?— 
A. We do always on the Grand Banks. Our vessels for salt cod always 
catch more or less halibut, which they put into salt. One vessel on one 
of its trips broughy back one- ae of its fare as flitched halibut from 
the Grand Banks. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Do you say you could not build a vessel of the same kind in the 
provinces cheaper than at Gloucester?—A. You mean that taking a 
white-oak vessel you ask me whether they can build it cheaper in the 
provinces than we can. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. Is there any difference in price in building vessels in our ports and 
there 7—A. There are different kinds of vessels. 

Q. is there any difference in the cost of building vessels ; take the 
same vessel?—A. No; very little. It is only a question of the labor, 
and thatis a very small amount. There is a shipbuilder in Maine who 
claims he can build them cheaper than they can be built in the prov- 
inces. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. That is quite contrary to what we had supposed to be the case. I 
would like you to justify the opinion.—A. They have not the material 
in the provinces to build what we call a first-rate ship. They have not 
any white oak. 

Q. Where do you get your white oak ?—A. Our white oak we get 
from New Hampshire and Fy GRUB Our hard pine comes from 
the Southern States. 

Q. Take such vessels as are built in the provinces, are they built at 
less expense than those at Gloucester ?—A. They are cheaper-built fish- 
ing-vessels. They use a cheaper-built fishing-vessel in the provinces 
than we do; but for the same vessel, I have my doubts whether it can 
be built cheaper in the provinces than in the States. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Do you make that statement with regard to the present time? Ves- 
sels built, say last year, and those now building, are they inferior ves- 
sels to United States fishing-vessels 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know what vessels have been built at Shelburne and Yar- 
mouth during the last two years ?—A. I have seen them. 

Q. And you still say they are inferior vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You wish to be understood as referring to the vessels themselves ? 
—A. I understand you take what I call a vessel—the quality of the 
wood, and the workmanship put on the vessel. Those vessels I do not 
consider so good as ours. 


| 


| AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2907 
Witness handed in the following tables : 
Schooner General Grant. 
{Sailed June 8; arrived October 27, 1876; 43 months. | 
19 66-200 barrels mess mackerel, at $17.00... 2... .c00 seecce cob ecs coccce cece $328 61 
is. S6-s00 varrels No. 1 mackerel, at 14.50......022. cecwcc cecses csccce cece 1° 713° 6L: 
mmemneae narrois NO; 2 mackere), at: 7,00). 2 ce cccuscc sccccviccesiousccesses 185 50 
sen-200 barrels No.3 mackerel, at 6.00. ..200 cacces sscces ccucncecscecse 15 00 
mLGrem barrels rusty mackerel, ati  3:75...2.6 cc ccen ccccoccnue covccecece 4 81 
8 barrels slivers, at 200 sacs aiesd ae ayes Soon eee sacar eee 16 00 
Haitisoldon trip. cwe-cwssse ss cweisee ws eens seiece cs seucaaleess 29 00 
167 159-200 2,292 53 
EXPENSES. a 
Packing 167 159-200 barrels, at $1.75.............-.. Bee SIRS ee atine eee $293 65 
BEREETEOIS GLLVETS VAL DO; OUice. wc cee soe eee tet concede taewcacee soe wses 108 50 
10 barrels slivers, at 5.00...... seicewolsocles plematdwicncic ce Wecatcoece eee ees 50 00 
220 barrels clams, at 4.25...............- Se Meee re eee eence Mae Melee eles eee 42 50 
BENEREGLESRITVOIN: B00 0.00 soc ccc tGawahvaeuadeusinasane ut ccac sunienacuganaukes 90 00 
MnRErOls WALEL, Go-005 2 feet W000, Ol cc2. ove c'cscess waccboatecsssedcccwess 4 30 
NES GU BOLAND So aairacsac (sc seh nae ese ae esse REERSeu SEATS SER ars eas 10 00 
BET J AIMNES DO Wl Osc occ icie wie, s'winicleinreinica cin secs cee be antersloeiseciee comes eas ects 135 
Hoisting 175 barrels...... ieee ac)p dowetincnc secoweeccics Soot setecs eee rioacts 2 63 
MEOH ANE OLDNABSso occ caikcecccs sac Sta ceces sea cases ee cieceees sac beaiace 4 22 
607 15 
NUMAN ENOLOR.- ork cca cast ow bere sas GaGts ta see tave cohen Hetiee reese 853 29 
POMOODOMS DAME soso erie crs wicca c acice winees hitalena ciel co ee eaie sent ae 832 09 
2, 292 53 
JOHN Pew & Sons, 
Retail price of salt at Gloucester, from 1860 to 1877. 
15GU ec ceceae + saiease. $2 per hhd. of 8 measured bushels. 
186) esstcGccecssesees Palettes 
EGS So eee eee eee Donate se 
UWS sseasicaes ccs oess 24% g 
TOGA ca co ss cunceeed RY 
LSGD cccs ects wacscee ee eee if - 
LEGGE See sec eee esa. 44 «“ es 
1SG7 eee atcesces cee AL at uf 
ABBR So 22 ca ce getece 34 se 
TEGO Sea es fee eat Or. es 
POU ree aeinas cceiccciete Qn ff eg 
NST re ca niajo tion sels ssies 2h 4 
LS e ese neces ce ohas se 
joy ee eer Oa ee sh 
IS(AS 2 aoc seciseteien secs PD ath af 
TSO s2s woe so ne cece Duet sf 
* LST 6 se sec cee se eeeees Leese ne 
a WeWeeccssiecasse 225s Tes 
Ie Chetan nest te on 494 
4 2.76 average price for 18 years. 
E, 0. E. JOHN PEW & SONS, . 
Gloucester, Mass. 
No. 74. : 


GEORGE W. PLUMER, of Gloucester, Mass., commission merchant 
and fish dealer, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, 
‘Sworn and examined. 

. By Mr. Dana: 

Question. You were born in Gloucester ?—Answer. Yes. 


2908 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. You never were a practical fisherman, I believe 7—A. No; I never 
went fishing. 

Q. When did you actually go into the fishing business on your own 
account 7—A. On my own account in 1855. 

Q. Previous to that you had been a clerk, or otherwise, in a fishing- 
house ?7—A. I had. 

Q. How many years ?—A. Six years. 

(. In what fishing house ?—A. J. Mansfield & Sons. 

«. Was that one of the largest firms in Gloucester?—A. Yes; at that 
time it was one of the largest houses. It had been engaged in the fish- 
eries 70 or 80 years. 

Q. In all kinds of fishing 7—A. General fishing. 

Q. You began with one vessel, I suppose 7?—A. Yes; a small interest 
in only one vessel in the bay. fishery. 

Q. Do you recollect what she made ?—A. About 200 barrels of fish. 

Q. In 1856 how many vessels had you ?—A. One vessel. 


Q. In 1857 ?—A. I had one vessel, West Gleam, fitted out for seining, - 


and I sent her into the North Bay. 

Q. Purse-seining ?—A. It was a seine adapted to either pursing or 
drawing on shore, as we make them sometimes. 

Q. What luck had you with purse-seining in 1857?—A. I made a 
very successful voyage. The vessel packed 520 barrels, I think. 

Q. Have you done anything like it since?—A. No. 

Q. What did you do in 1858 ?—A. In 1858, from the fact of having 
made a successful voyage in the previous year, I fitted out three large 
vessels with seines for the same business. 

Q. What did the different vessels take that year?—A. One packed 
273 barrels, another 270, and the third 47 barrels. 

Q. Were those, in fact, taken by seines?—A. They were not. 

Q. How was the seining ?—A. It was not successful; very few were 
taken. They were mostly taken with hooks. 

Q. Then, so far as seining was concerned, the trips were a total fail- 
ure ?—A. I consider so. 

Q. How were those vessels commanded 7—A. One was commanded 
by the same man who was successful the previous year, another was 
commanded by his son, and the third by a competent man who has been 
a witness here, Ezra Turner, of Isle of Haut. 

Q. The fish that were obtained were taken by hooks ?—A. Most of 
them, as I have reason to believe; a small portion may have been taken 
with seine. 

Q. Were those taken with hook taken inshore or offshore ?—A. I per- 
sonally have no information on the subject. 

@. Do you happen to know from the reports of the masters ?—A. Yes. 

(. How was it?—A. The report from two of them was that they went 
round the Newfoundland coast, and to the Magdalen Islands, and caught 
most of the mackerel there. As regards the third man, I have no recol- 
lection as to where he caught his mackerel. 

Q. In 1859, did you send out a seiner ?—A. I sent two of those same 
vessels into the bay. One of them caught 182 barrels, and the voyage 
es ee other was nearly a failure; it caught very few mackerel; 20-odd 

arrels. 

Q. Were those 180-odd barrels taken by hook or seine ?—A. I think 
with hooks; I am not positive. 

Q. In 1860, how many vessels did you send to the bay ?—A. Only 
one. 

Q. How was she fitted out A. With a seine and small boats for the 


' 


* 
- 


Sse 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2909 


purpose of fishing inshore round Prince Edward Island. I had been 
there and had become acquainted with the boat-fishing there, and I sent 
the vessel there for the express purpose of fishing inshore. 

Q. What sort of a seine did she have 7—A. A small seine adapted to 
the shoal waters of the island. 

Q. Do you think a fair trial was given to that experiment ?—A. I was 
always a little doubtful of it. The captain did not remain, I think, as 
long as he should have remained in order to make a successful voyage. 
He went there, and his report was that, seeing no prospect, he sailed 
about and went to Seal Island. 

Q. Did he get any mackerel at Prince Edward Island in his boats and 
small seine 7—A. I think not, from the fact that he returned with but 
very few mackerel in September. 

Q. Do you remember how many barrels he obtained 7—A. I have 
it down in my memorandum at 26 barrels. 

Q. Did he catch them off trom the island ?—A. I have no means 
of knowing. From his statement, he caught no mackerel at the island; 
he caught them in the bay generally. 

Q. You think that if he had staid longer, he might have perhaps done 
better 7—A. I did not approve of his leaving as soon as we did. 

Q. But still his judgment may have been best ?—A. Certainly. 

@. Where did he go when he left Prince Edward Island ?—A. He in- 
formed me he went to Isle Sable. I believe 2U or 25 years ago fisher- 
men occasionally obtained some very large mackerel there, and he had 
the idea he might procure some and he went there; but he got practi- 
cally nothing there, and his voyage was a failure. 

Q. From the experience obtained in those several voyages of seining, 
what was the difficulty experienced, and why did it not succeed in the 
gulf?—A. The principal reason I can assign for that is that our seines 
reached the bottom, and the shores about the gulf are of sandstone, 
forming a rough bottom, something like coral, and the fishermen do not 
succeed in pursing them as they can in deep water. . Another reason is 
that the mackerel, in order to be successful at seining, must school— 
come to the surface of the water and show themselves—which they are 
not so likely to do in North Bay. 

Q. That is the whole reason 7—A. I am not enabled to determine that. 
I know what I have said has been the case. 

_Q. Did you yourself go to Prince Edward Island and establish a busi- 

ness ?—A. I did, in 1858; in connection with those vessels I went to 
the island, and since that time I have been engaged in shipping pro- 
duce, and connected a little with the fisheries. 

Q. From 1858 you have been connected with the island as a mer- 


chant ?—A. More or less to the present time. 


Q. What is the principal business you have been engaged in at the 
island ?—A. My principal business at the island has been the shipment 
of potatoes, and in some cases cargoes of oats. I have also shipped 
cargoes to the West Indies of the general products of the island, includ- 
ing live stock. 

Q. Then your business on the island has been dealing in the products 
of the island, and sending them to the West Indies and elsewhere 7—A, 
Yes; principally to the markets of the United States, and occasionally 
to the West Indies. 

Q. And at the same time you have kept up some connection with the 


fishing ?—A. A little, occasionally. 


-Q. Have you had an interest in a vessel or two every year?—A. I 
have, passing over some two or three years. Along about 1863, 1864, and 


2910 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


1865, I was interested in the charter of some English vessels and one or 
two American vessels in connection with other parties at the island, of 
which I have no account here. I am unable to give the results of their 
voyages exactly. 

Q. In 1862, did something happen which obliged you to personally 

stay at the island 2—A. My agent, who was down there, died, and I 
passed a portion of the season there, during 10 or 12 years—during the 
time of navigation being opened, from spring till December. 

@. Did you have charge of a fishing stage at Rustico ?—A. I did dur- 
ing one year, in 1862. The man in charge was drowned, and I passed 
a portion of the year there, and superiptended the business of the stage. 

Q. You went into the boat fishing?—A. Yes. 

Q. To what extent?—A. We had, I think, 6 or 8 large boats employed. 

Q. Was it a paying business to you or not?—A. Not sufficiently so to 
induce me to stay another year. We caught 600 barrels of mackerel. 

Q. With all your boats?—A. Yes. 

Q. You had to support the men and furnish supplies?7—A. To sup- 
port the men in the ordinary manner, and we bought their fish. 

Q. After one season you gave that up ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Were you engaged in the produce business and freighting, freight- 
ing for other people besides yourself?—A. Yes. 

Q. But you still fitted out every year at least one vessel for fishing? 
—A. Yes, down there I did. 

Q. Were those vessels you fitted out down there fitted with seines or 
hooks and lines, or both ?—A. They were fitted with hooks and lines 
and with seines as accessories; I had the seines on hand, and I sent 
them as instruments to use in case of the mackerel schooling and an 
opportunity being offered of catching them. 

. How long were the boats you used when you were engaged in boat 
fishing ?—A. The boats were, I think, from 25 to 30 feet in length, and 
were designed with the object of being good boats and able to sail well 
to the wind. I should say that at first the boats were smaller, and we 
had larger ones built and increased their size and sea-worthiness and 
adaptation to the business. 

Q. How far out did the boats go to catch mackerel ?—A. They went 
as far as they had occasion to find the fish, it depending on the water. 
Sometimes the fish were in round the headlands, within one mile of the 
shore; sometimes within half a mile; and frequently the boats went 
out so that I could just see them as specks with a glass, say 7 miles. 
The men used to tell me they went seven or eight miles out, if the mack- 
erel happened to be there. 

Q. You spoke of their being near inshore off the headlands; did they 
keep nearer shore there than at the bend of the island ?—A. Yes; from 
the fact that the water is deeper at the headlands. 

Q. I think you did not send any vessels to the bay this year ?—A. 
No. 

Q. Did you send one there last year ?—A. I did. I had one vessel in 
North Bay in 1873. 

Q. Take all those attempts you have made, with hand-lines and seines 
adapted to the coast, has it been a profitable or unprofitable business ? 
—A. On the whole, I can say with safety I have not made any money 
in the business on the aggregate revenues. Of course, in the first year 
I made a very profitable voyage. 

Q. That was in 1863 ?7?—A. In 1857. 

Q. Do you think that voyage produced an effect on you?’—A,. It 
stimulated me to further action. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2911 


Q. But your faith has given out ?—A. A little, and Iam getting a 
little old. 

Q. Did you leave the island in 1873?—A. 1873 was my last visit to 
the island. 

Q. During the time down to 1873 were you called to all other parts of 
the island on business ?—A. I was. 

Q. In your business connected with produce and fishing ?7—A. Yes; 
in purchasing fish and products. 

@. Thus you kept yourself informed’ ?—A. I was necessarily compelled 
to do so on account of my general business. 

Q. During all that time have you seen many American vessels fishing 
near the bend of the island ?—A. I have not. I have occasionally seen 
American vessels, but of course, from the land, I had not a very good 
opportunity of seeing many vessels fishing. 

Q. In so far as your observation went, you had not seen many Ameri- 
can vessels fishing ?—A. I think not many. 

Q. Why had you not an opportunity of seeing them—because they 
were not there 7—A. Because I was not there much of the time. 

Q. From what you did observe, what conclusion did you come to— 
that American vessels fished to a great extent within the line of three 
miles in the bend of the island ?—A. I can only say that I saw but few 
vessels fishing what I considered within the three-mile limit. 

Q. How about the distance from the headlands? Were they nearer 
the headlands than the bend of the island 7—A. Necessarily so, because 
the headlands project more out into the sea. 

Q. Have you taken any pains to enable yourself to ascertain the 
distance from the land of vessels 7—A. I have only done so in our own 
harbor, when the distance can be measured from one shore to another. 
I have made a little observation in regard to the hulls of vessels appear- 
ing above the shoreline at that distance. 

Q. You have made observations with glasses and with your eyes ?— 
A. Merely incidentally, not with any particular reason or object; but 
having vessels out from what we call three miles in Gloucester Harbor, 
I could see how they appear on the horizon. 

Q. So you have a substantial judgment as to the distance a vessel is 
off, when you know the size of the vessel ?—A. I have had some ex- 

rience, because I have had the experience of 50 years in vessels, hav- 
ing had vessels myself, and from general observation. 

Q. Have you had occasion to observe how far out the boats went; I 
don’t mean merely your own boats, but other boats ?—A. I have; it 
was part of ny duty. I was interested in boats, and when there were 
indications of a storm or night was coming on, I would take a glass and 


see how the boats fared, for they might want assistance from the shore. 


 Q. And what distance out did you often find the large boats that 


‘Were owned there and engaged in day fishing?—A. I have said before 
_ that the fish were sometimes very ‘near the shore, and other times if the 


Weather was fine and the mackerel were playing off the coast, they 
fished at a-distance of 6, 7, or 8 miles from land. 

Q. Do you know Malpeque very well ?—A., Yes. 

Q. What do you think of it as a place to run to?—A. I think Mal- 
peque is a very good harbor after you have entered, but the difficulty 
is to enter it. It is a place into which, with fine weather and a smooth 
aa you can enter with pérfect safety. 


ss But suppose the sea has begun to rise; what then?—A. Ii con- 
er 


it the same as all other harbors that are "barred. 
Q. What is the depth of water on the bar at high tide ?—A. 1 have 


2912 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


never measured it; but I have loaded vessels which have drawn 11 
feet. 

Q. Do they go out except with a high tide and favorable wind ?—A, 
That is left discretionary with the master, of course; he goes when he 
is prepared to go, but the presumption is he does not go out in a storm, 

Q. What kind of place is it in case of an impending storm? If, for 
instance, the tide is low, or the sea has begun to feel the effect of the 
gale, is it a safe place?—A. I should think it would be unsafe, and a 
prudent man would go round North Cape, and try and make a harbor 
on the other side of the coast. 

Q. Is the bar a constant one, or shifting one?—A. I do not know 
from personal observation; but from general information it is like all 
sand-bars—changeable. I have had occasion, from year to year, to in- 
quire into the depth of water at the bars on the north side of the island, 
in anticipation of sending vessels there. It depends on the action of 
the storms. In some cases the water is deeper one year than another, 
owing to the action of gales on the sand, as it is with all barred har- 
bors. 

Q. Does the bar shift?—A. It usually shifts somewhat by the action 
of the sea. 

Q. Do you know about Cascumpeque? What sort of a bar is there? 
—A. I have loaded vessels at Cascumpeque frequently. It isa good 
harbor, and safe when you get inside. It is another barred harbor. It 
is not considered quite as safe as Malpeque; it has not quite so wide an 
entrance, and has not quite such deep water. 


Q. It has not so good an entrance as Malpeque ?—A. I don’t consider 


it so. 
Q. In 1868, what had you in the bay ?—A. The schooner Rebecca A. 
Mathews. 


TUESDAY, October 23, 1877. 


The Conference met. 
The examination of GEORGE W. PLUMER was resumed. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. Yesterday you spoke about having fitted out a large ves- 
sel in 1868; was her crew American ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. Did they sail under the American tlag ?—A. Yes. 

@. Did you purchase a license ?7—A. I think so. My attention was 
yesterday called to a memorandum which I had in my possession, and 
that is the only evidence I have of that fact. 

Q. Your impression is that you purchased a license ?—A. I think so. 

Q. How long was your vessel gone on the voyage ?—A. Some three 
months, according to my impression. 

Q. What did she take 7—A. About 70 barrels of mackerel. 

Q. How much did you lose on that voyage ?—A. My estimated loss 
on the return of the vessel to Charlottetown in October was some 
$2,200 or $2,300. 

Q. After 1868 did you do any more fishing i in the gulf?—A. I think 
not, until 1873; but I had some vessels employed on our shore during 
the interval. In 1873 I had a vessel in the bay. 

Q. Had you any vessels on the American coast in 1869, 1870, 1871, 
and 1872 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. For a portion of the time, two only. 

@. Where were they fishing ?—A. On the coasts of Massachusetts 
and Maine; they went as far south as Cape Henry during that time. 


> at | 


SS tl ee = <4 
pa | 
— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2913 

Q. What was the result ?—A. I can only givetit in°general terms ; it 
was rather unsatisfactory. I have not the figures with me. | 

Q. How did it compare with the result you obtained in the gulf?—A. 
Untavorably, except as to the first large catch [ had. 

Q. Unfavorably, with respect to which fishery 7—A. The provincial. 

Q. Which was the best fishery 7—A. We were rather more successful 
on our own shore than we were in the bay.*“="~ 

Q. Did you again try fishing in the gulf in 1873 ?—A. Yes. 

@. How many vessels had you then there ?—A. I have only a mem- 
orandum of one. 

Q. How many trips did she make ?—A. One; she shipped home mack- 
erel; on the 5th of August I received 128 barrels, and in December 53 
barrels. This vessel wastost in the gale of that year, in October, I 
think, off the Magdalen Islands. Her entire catch was 181 barrels. 

Q. Did this pay ?—A. It probably would pay the expenses. 

@. How many vessels had you fishing in the gulf in 1874?—A,. One 
only. . 

Q. What did she take?—A. I have 1864 barrels down for her—the 
exact quantity we packed. 

Q. What number of vessels had you in the bay in 1875?—A. One, 
which got during the season about 240 barrels. 

Q. What was her first catch ?—A. The first sent home was 179 bar- 
rels. 

Q. Were those fish caught with hooks, or the purse-seine ?—A. A 

small portion of them was caught, I am informed, with the seine, and a 
_yery large proportion with the kook. 

_Q. Have you any information as to what proportion ?—A. I think 
that in the vessel which I sent out in 1873 they obtained, probably, 
more than 100 barrels with the seine, but in 1874 and 1875, when the 
+ yessels had seines, I am not aware of them so securing any. 

| Q. What did you do in 1876?—A. I then dispatched one vessel to 
| the bay, and she sent home 473 barrels; she was Jost in a gale at Port 
| Hood in October, when she went ashore. 

Q. Did you then give up fishing ?—A. I have done nothing at it this 

ear. 

: Q. What can you tell us about the menhaden fisheries in the United 
States ?—A. I have had some general experience in that business; I 
have employed vessels in the menhaden fishery for bait. 

Q. Where did they bring their cargoes of menhaden ?—A. To Glouces- 
Q. Were any part of them shipped to Prince Edward Island 7?—A. I 
have frequently sold bait to be shipped to Prince Edward Island and 
the Strait of Canso, and [ have myself shipped them there. 
~Q. Do you know whether orders are received at Gloucester from the 
island and other places in the provinces for menhaden?—A. Yes, from 
the fact that I have very frequently received them myself, and have so 
sold menhaden almost every year more or less. This present year I 
have sold some to go there. ; 

Q. Have you been engaged in the business of buying frozen herring ? 
—A. Yes. / 

-Q. For how many years?—A. I should say it is now about 20 years 
since I commenced doing so. 

~ Q. Where did you first buy frozen herring ?—A. I think that my first 
sg were made to Newfoundland, on its south shore, in Fortune Bay, 
and to other ports in that direction. ' . 


183 F 


= 


-- 


= 


2914 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. At what other places have you. bought them ?—A., I have done so 
in the Bay of Fundy. 

Q. During this whole period of 20 years, have you ever heard whether 
your vessels fished for or bought herring 7—A. In one instance I fitted 
out the schooner Rebecca M. Atwood, which went seining in the bay 
in 1868, in October, to go on a voyage to Newfoundland; and she pro- 
cured a cargo of herring. On her return I was told by the master that 
a portion of these herring were seined by them. I sent a seine and a 
boat for seining with her. Lalso gave instructions to purchase, but they 
succeeded, as I was told, in getting a portion of this cargo by seining. 

Q. When was this ?—A. In 1868. 

. Q. This vessel excepted, have you during these 20 years ever caught 
herring ?—A. No; that was the only instance when I ever caught them. 

@. With the exception of this one vessel, have you ever known or 
heard of American vessels which did catch herring there ?—A. I have, 
I, with Ezra Turner, who was before the Commission, I understand—as 
I was interested with him in some of his enterprises there—sent nets 
for the purpose of catching fish ourselves ; but not being successful, we _ 
abandoned it. ; 

Q. How often did you try this ?—A. Only once, I think. 

Q. Is that a different case from the one you have mentioned 7—A. 
Yes; it was a different voyage, made to the Bay of Fundy instead of 
Newfoundland. 

Q. Then, in the course of these 20 years you have known of only one 
vessel that caught a portion of her cargo in Newfoundland, and another 
which went to catch herring in the Bay of Fundy ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How long ago was this?—A. The first trip was made in 1868, and 
the other about 20 years ago. 

Q. You have never been engaged in the herring business in any other 
wise than purchase, and you have never known any American vessels 
obtain them, save by purchase, with those exceptions ?—A. Yes; I 
have known of one vessel which was reported to have been fitted out 
from Gloucester expressly to catch herring in the Bay of Fundy; she | 
was an American vessel, with an American crew, and with nets. 

Q. How long ago was this ?—A. Three or four years ago. 

Q. What became of her?—A. The result was that they obtained some , 
herring, but, on the whole, it was not a paying business, and so they _ 
abandoned it; so I was informed by the captain. 

Q@. In the course of 20 years you have only known of two such 
instances and heard of a third?—A. Yes; that is all. 

Q. You are now living at Gloucester?—A. Yes. 

q. What is the condition of the trade in salt mackerel now, compared 
with what it was in times past?—A. I think that there has been a 
decline in the consumption of mackerel, and also a falling off in the 
catches and in the trade generally within the last 15 years. 

Q. What are the causes of the falling off in the demand ?—A. Of 
course that is a matter of conjecture. I have no facts to establish my 
opinion, but my idea is that this is caused by the greater abundance of 
fresh fish, or rather the greater facilities for the transportation of fresh 
fish into the interior of the United States by railroads diverging from 
different points, and affording better facilities for transportation. Itis * | 
also due in a very large measure to the increase in the catch of our — 
western-lake fisheries. Another reason I would give for this is as fol- | 
lows:. I think there has been a great deal of fraud practiced. by our 
own packers, and the quality of the fish packed has hence deteriorated ; 


. 
es ~~ 7 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2915 


in consequence of this fact, people have been deceived, and have not 
got a good article. This has been a great weight on the trade. 

Q. The quality of the fish has been marked too high ?—A. Yes; the 
packers have not kept up the standard character of their fish. 

Q. Do you know how it is with reference to the South and the South- 
ern Middle States? Is there now a demand for mackerel from there as 
used to be the case ?—A. 1 am informed, and my own experience is, 
that this demand is not so large as it was formerly. 

Q. What do you think has caused the demand to slacken up there 
particularly? Is anything there used as a substitute for mackerel ?— 
A. I can only account for it by presuming that the Southern fisheries 


_ may have been developed; and I have been informed that they have 


been somewhat ; however, I have no personal knowledge in this matter 


farther south than Chesapeake Bay. 


Q. What is the principal fishery which they have developed for use 
South ?—A. It is what they call a herring fishery, though I should con- 
sider that these fish were more similar to our Northern alewives; and 
the mullet fishery. Whitefish from the lakes are also sent there. 

Q. Do you know the extent to which the lake fish have been intro- 
duced into common use in the market ?—A. I know nothing on this head 
from personal experience, and all I know about it is derived from gen- 
eral information which I have obtained on that subject from parties who 


\ are in the business. 


Q. Do you know how much they put up for the market in Chicago ?— 
A. Lonly know what I have been informed in this regard. 

Q. Have any fish merchants left Gloucester to go to the Western 
States to engage in the lake-fish business?—A. Yes; I recollect one 
who did go. 

~Q. What is his name ?—A. John J. Clarke. 

_Q. Was he a man who could not do anything in Gloucester, or was 
he a man of capital, enterprise, and high standing 7—A. He was a man 
of good standing, with capital enough to carry on his business. 

Q. He has gone to Chicago?—A. Yes; he abandoned business in Glou- 
 cester and now resides in Chicago. ; 

Q. Is he largely engaged in the lake-fish business 7—A. I am told so, 
, and I have had some trade with him myself. 

Q. Do you happen to know how much business he did last year ?—A. 
Ido not; but was informed by his brother while speaking of the matter 
incidentally that he packed some 26,000 or 28,000 packages himself. 

Q. Of large fish ?—A. Yes; whitefish. 

Q. You have been to Prince Edward Island, and you have observed 
' Operations there carefully; what is the great business of this island, fish- 
idg or agriculture 7—A. Agricultural pursuits form their principal occu- 
pation; on the sea-coast the farmers fish for a portion of the time; but 
Tconsider agriculture their principal pursuit. 

Q. Fishing with them is incidental 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember a time when they used vessels fishing ?—A. I 
do; at one time, some 12 years ago, I know they fitted out quite a num- 
ber of vessels at the island. : 

Q. What was the effect of the Reciprocity Treaty ou the fishing inter- 
est of the island 7—A. I think that its tendency was to develop their 
fishing business somewhat. They fitted out, as I say, more vessels for 
this business, and there was quite an increase in the number of their 
fishing-boats, which were then made of a better style, and provided with 
better facilities than was previously the case. 

_Q. How was it with the island fishermen who had been engaged fish- 


2916 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ing from Gloucester; did they return to the island to any extent and 
engage in fishing ?—A. Well, that is a difficult question to answer. 
Many of our men come during the summer and return home in the au- 
tumn from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and all parts of British 
North America; and they may return and they may not. Many of them 
do return, and some of them take up their permanent residence with 
us. A large portion of our fishing people are from the provinces. 

Q. What was the effect of the termination, of the expiration of the 
Reciprocity Treaty which took place in 1866, on the fishing interest of 
Prince Edward Island, this being followed by the restoration of the $2 
a barrel duty?—A. I have not had very much personal knowledge of 
the fishing about the island since. 

Q. Since you withdrew from it?—A. Yes. My last experience there 
was previous to that, in the boat-fishing. My experience in boat-fishing 
was in 1862 and 1863, and principally, I think, in 1862. 

Q. But you have remained, engaging in other business ?—A. I have 
for a portion of the time, up to the last three or four years, and I am 
still engaged in it somewhat. I have not been very largely so engaged, 
personally, but I send vessels there occasionally. I am consequently 
hardly competent to give an opinion on that subject. 


By Mr. Weatherbe: 


Q. In 1860 I think you said you were engaged in the boat. fishing on 
the island ?—A. I think it was in 1862. 

Q. In 1862 you went down and took charge of a stage where a person 
had been drowned ?—A. Yes; that was my first experience in the boat- 
fishery. 

Q. I think you sent a vessel there with seines and boats in 1860?—A, 
Yes. 

Q. You stated that the captain did not then give that fishing a fair 
trial?—A. I think so. I consider that he did not. I requested him to 
remain there until I met him myself, and I started home to make ar- 
rangements, but he meanwhile went away. His excuse was that he 
could not find any fish there, and hence he abandoned the voyage; but 
I think myself that he did so too soon; I was not quite satisfied with 
his conduct. 

Q. Previous to that you had not engaged in the boat-fishery at all? 


—A. No; I had, however, been there, and my attention having been | 


called to it, I thought it might be profitabie; hence I fitted out that 
vessel. 


Q. You thought you would have been successful ?—A. I thought I | 


was warranted in the undertaking. 


Q. But previous to that, during the 3 preceding years, you had 3 ves- | 


sels engaged in the vessel ‘mackerel fishery ?—A. Yes. 
Q. And they were not very successful ?—A. They were not. I gave 
the result of their trips. 


Q. Generally speaking, they were not successful ?—A. Two of them | 


made very fair voyages; but one, to which I refer particularly, in 1858, 
did not do so. 

Q. The one which was not successful made her voyage in 1858?—A. 
Yes; she got some-47 barrels; and the one which, in 1860, went to the 
island with the boats, only got a few fish. 

Q. I think you said that the vessel which was not very successful in 
1858, from information that you got, fished outside of the three-mile 
limit?—A. I am not aware of having made any such statement in con- 
nection with those voyages. 

Q. Are you able to say now from information you received whether 


SS eS ee RS Sat ay ae OE! Sei os 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2917 | 


during that season the fishery was carried on inside or outside of the 
three-mile limit 7—A. They fished I understood, as far as I could have 
any information on the subject, principally at the Magdalen Islands, 
and in the fall, off shore; and they did not succeed in getting fish early 
in the year. 

Q. During that year, as far as you could learn, this vessel was engaged 
fishing at the Magdalen Islands and off shore at other places ?—A. I 
state that these vessels went with seines in the gulf where they were 
successful the year before; but they then failed to procure their fare 
there and they abandoned their seines; but during the autumn they 
succeeded in getting the quantity which I gave. 

Q. Iam speaking of 1858 altogether ; how many barrels did your ves- 
sel catch that year?—A. I have stated that one vessel took 273 barrels, 
another 270, and the third about 47; these are the approximate quanti- 
ties as near as I could get them. 

Q. Did you seek information regarding the vessel which caught the 
47 barrels, from the captain, as to where they had fished ?—A. Yes; 
all these vessels were to go and fish on the north shore of the gulf— 
this was the intention—where one of the captains had succeeded in 
securing a cargo the year before. 

Q. Where did the captain of the vessel which caught the 47 barrels 
tell you he fished ?—A. In the St. Lawrence, near the mouth, on the 
north shore. 

Q. Was that north of Anticosti?—A. Yes; and west of Anticosti, in 
the vicinity of Seven Islands, and to the west of it, up to the places 
called St. Nicholas and Godbout. 

Q. That is where they fished and failed?—A. That is where all three 
vessels went early in the season for the purpose of seining mackerel. 

Q. And they all fished there?—A. They all went there early in the 
Season. 

Q. Were you informed as to whether they fished inshore or not ?7— 
A. No; they went there to seine. 

Q. That is where they fished ?—-A. That is were they attempted to 
fish, but did not succeed in getting mackerel during the summer with 
seines. 

Q. You stated that two of them fished on the N pata coast and 
at the Magdalen Islands?—-A. On their return, after having abandoned 
their herring voyages, I was informed that they had gone down the coast 
of Newfoundland to Anticosti and the Magdalen Islands. 

Q. For mackerel ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is were they fished ?--A. Yes; as I am informed. 

Q. In 1858, you had no vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery ?—A. 
_ In 1858, I had three vessels so engaged. 

Q. In 1858, you were yourself engaged in shipping potatoes and oats 
| from P. E. Island 2A. In 1858, I went there and made some arrange- 
_ ments for loading these three vessels in the fall with produce. 

Q. Then, in 1862, you went to take charge of a fishing stage at Rus- 
| tico?—A. Yes. 

Q. So that was your first personal experience in the mackerel fish- 

| ery?—A. That was my first experience in the boat fishery. ° 

_« Q. Were you personally engaged in the fisheries previously to that?— 
A. I never personally went fishing. 

Q. You have had no personal experience in fishing yourself?—-A. No, 
not at all; I have never been a practical fisherman. 

Q. You never even had so much personal experience in connection 


2918 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


with the fisheries as you obtained at the fishing stage until you went i 
and took charge of it?—A. No. 

Q. Did you oversee the stage and take charge of it personally ?—A, 
Yes; I had general supervision of it that summer. 

Q. You had six or eight boats employed ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And you caught 620 barrels ?—A. I think so. 

q. Were these boats manned by persons who resided on the island 7— 
A. We had four men from Gloucester, and the remainder of the crews 
were island men. 

Q. Was this the first experience of these four Gloucester men in boat- 
fishing ?—A. I think that is probable, but they were experienced fish- 
ermen. 

Q. And the others you picked up on the shore ?—A. They were island 
men. 

- Q. Were they fishing on shares ?—A. Yes. 

QQ. Recently, you say, you have observed that the boats have in- 
creased in size on the island ?—A. I think I said I have been so in- 
formed. I have had no personal knowledge, or very little, in this regard 
since. 

Q. Have they largely increased in number as well ?—A. I only speak 
on this head from information which I have received from others. 

Q. How many boats have you heard they have ?—A. I am unable to 
say any thing about the number. 

Q. You say that the vessels fish nearer the headlands than the inden- 
tations in the shore ?—A. I had particular reference to the boats in 
making that statement. 

Q. Do you know where the vessels fished ?—A. I have very little 
personal knowledge with regard to the vessels. 

Q, You have very little personal knowledge as to where they fish ?— 
Yes; very little indeed. 

Q. Do you know where your vessel fished the year when the license 
was obtained ?—A. Idonot; but I asked the sea-master about it a few 
days before I left home, and he told me that they fished that year prinei- 
pally on Banks Orphan and Bradley. 

Q. And he failed there ?—A. Yes; they only got a few mackerel that — 
year—about 70 barrels, I think. 

Q. Did you direct him to go there and fish ?—A. I had no control over 
that matter. 

Q. Did you give him any advice as to where he should fish ?—A, No; 
the captain had control of the voyage. 

Q. In fact, you have never had a vessel fish within 3 miles of the 
shore of Prince Edward Island?—A. Not that I am aware of, with one | 
exception. I think I had only one vessel there for the purpose of boat- 
fishing. 

Q. With that exception you have had no experience in this regard ?— 
A. No; not within the three-mile limit. 

Q. Do you mean to say that less mackerel are now used than was_ 
formerly the case?—A. That is my impression; certainly. 

Q. Can you give me any statistics regarding the quantity of mackerel 
consumed in the United States ?—A. I presume that the whole quantity 
taken is either exported or consumed. ‘ 

Q. Where ?—A. In the United States. 

Q. Is the whole quantity caught off the United States coast consumed | 
there ?—A. No; I think that the poorer grade of mackerel, number = 
three, is exported to the West Indies. 

Q. Are the mackerel caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence chiefly con- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2919 


sumed in the United States ?—A. I should say that this is the case with 
a large portion of them. 

Q. Do you know how many barrels of mackerel are caught and con- 
sumed in the United States?—A. I do not know how many are there 
consumed, 

Q. Can you give us any sort of an idea as to how many barrels of 
mackerel are consumed annually in the United States ?—A. I should 
think that fully three-quarters of the entire catch are there consumed. 

Q. How many is that 7—A. I cannot give the catch for last year. 

q. The largest number of barrels ever consumed in the United States 
is very small compared with the population 7—A. Yes, somewhat so. 

Q. Very little of this kind of fish is consumed there in comparison 
with the population ?—A. I think so; the catch some 15 years ago was 
from 360,000 to 350,000 barrels; and last year it was only 180,000 bar- 
rels. Iam now giving the figures for the State of Massachusetts alone. 
Some years the catch has been as high as 300,000 barrels. 

Q. Those were caught in that State?—They were packed in that 
State. 

Q. Does this number include what was caught in the bay and packed 
in that State ?—A I presume so. 

Q. During what years was the catch 300,000 barrels ?—A. I cannot 
tell you. Iam now only speaking in general terms. 

Q. You spoke of a decline in the catch ?—A. In. 1863 and 1864 we 
had a very large catch of mackerel. 

Q. Can you give any sort of an idea as to the extent of such decline ? 
—A. It has gone down from the quantity mentioned to 180,009 barrels 
for last year; and this year the catch will be less. 

Q. What was it previously ?—A. I have no figures which would enable 
me to give such a statement. 

Q. You cannot tell us what it was previously 7—A. I cannot give you 
the figures. 

Q. We were told yesterday by Mr. Pew that the custom now was to 
ship fresh mackerel into the interior?—A. It is so shipped very largely. 

Q. Fresh mackerel ?—A. Yes; packed in ice. 

Q. I understood you to say that the decline in the mackerel trade 
was owing to existing facilities for sending fish into the interior ?—A. 
I think that to a certain extent is a cause for it. 

Q. But if they send this very fish in the interior in the fresh state, 
how can that cause a decline in the mackerel trade? Would this not 
rather cause an increase?—A. I was speaking up to the present time of 
salt mackerel entirely. 
 Q. Then you admit that fresh mackerel are being sent into the inte- 
Tior in the fresh state ?—A. Yes. 
~Q. And that trade is increasing ?—A. I think so; the trade in all 
kinds of fresh fish is increasing. 

_Q. Those fish are caugkt on your own coast ?—A. The fresh mack- 
erel; yes 

Q. Do you not think that this would increase the demand for mack- 
erel very greatly ?—A. It would increase the demand for fresh mackerel. 
I do not think that the one branch has any influence at all over the 
other; that is my impression. There is only a limited demand for 
mackerel. 

Q. And only a limited quantity of mackerel is caunght?—A. Certainly. 


__ Q. Do you not think that the demand for fresh fish, which is increas- 


ng in the interior, opens an increased demand for salt mackerel ?—A. 


- Not at all. 


* 
: 
: 
le — 


2920 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Since there is a limited supply altogether 7?—A. I think that per- 
sons who wish to eat fresh mackerel would never eat salt mackerel. 

Q. You think they give up the use of salt mackerel altogether?—A. 
Not altogether, but to a certain extent. : 

Q. How is it with regard to codfish?—A. Cod are also shipped fresh. 

Q. Is the demand for salt codfish declining ?—I think not. I think | 
that the demand for salt codfish is increasing. I think that these are | 
taken in preference to mackerel as an article of food, as they are, I be- | 
lieve, obtained in better condition, as an article of food, than is the case 
with salt mackerel. @-34 ————° ; 

Q. You gave us to understand that one man who carried on the fish- 
ing business in Gloucester went West; did he do a very large business 
in Gloucester ?—A. He had quite a number of vessels—six or eight, L 
think, employed in the business. 

Q. I suppose that the fish sent West are sent to him in large quanti-. 
ties 7—A. I think that he is not a buyer of fresh sea-fish—at least I am 
not aware of it; I think that he deals in salt sea-fish. 


\ 


No. 75. 


JAMES A. PETTES, fisherman and hotel-keeper, of Grand Manan, was 
called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and 
examined. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. You live at Grand Manan ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. How long have you lived there 7—A. Since I was 7 years of age. 

Q. Where were you born ?—A. In Boston. 

Q. What is your present occupation ?—A. I am a hotel-keeper and I 
fish in winter. 

Q. Do you fish yourself, or buy fish, or fit out fishing-boats?—A. I 
fish and I buy fish. 

Q. How long have you been keeping an hotel there?—A. I could not 
say exactly, but [have done so for 10 or 15 years. I live at North 
Head, Grand Manan. 

Q. What is the population of Grand Manan ?—A. Itis somewhere . 
about 2,000; it is now some time since the census was taken. 

Q. What proportion of its people would you say are engaged in fish- 
ing ?—A. I should think less than one-fifth of the population do so, or 
350 people. 

Q. What fisheries are prosecuted there ?—A. The cod, hake, pollack, 
and herring fisheries, besides haddock; but very few of them are taken; © 
and smoked herring are put up, and frozen herring in winter, and some 
few pickled herring. 

Q. With regard.to smoked and frozen and pickled herring, who are 
the fishermen employed to catch them? Where do they come from ?— 
A. These are mostly natives of the island. 

Q. Is there any large proportion of Americans employed in fishing 
there?—A. No; not a large, but a very small proportion is so engaged. 

Q. In your long experience in the island, how many American vessels 
go there for the purpose of fishing ?—A. Of vessels, scarcely any come 
there; but small open boats, of something like from 3 to 5 tons, come 
there occasionally from Eastport and Lubec. 

Q. Then the herring fishery is exclusively a fishery in which the 
natives are engaged ?—A. Yes; nearly altogether. 

Q. Do you know whether the bulk of the smoked herring is sent from . 


an, ie al 


En rT 


‘AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2921 


there 7—A. It mostly goes to Boston and New York. This year I think 
that it nearly all has gone there. 

Q. How do they get to Boston and New York ?—A. Vessels owned 
at the island are employed in this trade. I think that four vessels 
owned there are constantly running to those points, and occasionally a 
yessel is chartered in this trade. 

Q. What sort of a trade, in the way of smoked herring, is done 
between Eastport and Grand Manan ?—A. Small vessels and little ves- 
sels run over there from that place occasionally; and some of the 
smaller fishermen, perhaps, take their fish over in small boats. 

Q. You know something about Eastport and its neighborhood 7— 
A. Yes;-I ran a packet there for four years. 

Q. Do you know of any body of people—Americans—living along 
that coast, which depend for their livelihood on fishing in British waters ? 
—A. No; not to depend on fishing in British waters; I do not. 

Q. Have you been able to form anything like an estimate which you 
think is a just one concerning the value of the whole Grand Manan 
herring fishery, including the hake and pollack fisheries 7—A. I should 


| know this pretty well, as I am among the fishermen constantly. 


By Mr. Thomson : 
Q. What is that paper which you have now in your hand ?—A. It 


' contains some notes which I have taken down. 


Q. From where ?—A. For Grand Manan. 
Q. From what ?—A. They concern the quantity of fish taken there. 
Q. What did you take them from ?—A. My own observation, and 


' from the amount of fish shipped, and the quantity of hake sounds taken. 


Q. When did you make them up?—A. Since I came here. 
By Mr. Trescot: 
Q. Can you make your statement without using this paper ?—A. Yes. 


' There are about 10,000 quintals of hake taken, and about 8,000 quintals 


of codfish ; about 400,000 boxes of herring are smoked on the average ; 


_ about $17,000 worth of frozen herring are shipped in winter ; about 4,000 


barrels of pickled herring—this is a large estimate—are shipped; and 
the catch of herring which are sold for bait, and other kinds of fish, 
such as lobsters, haddock, and pollack, &c., would aggregate in value 
probably to $10,000. 

Q. To the best of your judgment, what do you think that the Grand 
Manan fisheries are worth annually 7—A. Well, to the natives alone ? 

Q. Yes.—A. I should say that $150,000 a year would be a large esti- 
mate for the native fisheries. ; 

Q. Do you know anything about the fisheries prosecuted on Campo- 
bello and Deer Islands and from thence to the main-land, and from Le- 
tite to Lapreau ?—A. Of course I am not so intimately acquainted with 
this fishery as with the Grand Manan fishery; but I should say that 
the Campobello and Deer Island fishery would probably equal ours in 
value, and the fishery on the north shore, say from Letite to St. An- 
drew’s, would probably come to something near the same sum. 

Q. Suppose I were to tell you that in this fishery, from Letite and Le- 
prean on the mainland, and over at Grand Manan, there were caught 
annually fish valued at $1,500,000 by British fishermen, and fish valued at 
$1,500,000 by American fishermen, all in British waters, would you 
think that it would be a correct statement ?—A. No; I would not. 

- Q. Have you any idea that such a thing could be true ?—A. I think 
that the man who made that statement must have been mistaken. 
~ Q. Do you know anything about Gloucester vessels coming down 


on 


> 


2922 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


stopping at Eastport, and going over to Grand Manan with Eastport 


fishermen and seines prepared to fish ?—A. I never knew of a case of 


that kind in my life. 

Q. Have you had some opportunity of knowing whether such could be 
the case ?—A. Yes; because I am myself engaged in this fishery in 
winter. I have known them, however, bring some boats from Campo- 
bello in one or two instances. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. I suppose that you are not an American citizen ?—A. I was born 
in Boston, and I have not been naturalized. 

Q. Then you went when quite young to live at Grand Manan ?—A. I 
think I was about 7 years old when my parents moved there. 

Q.,And you have lived there ever since 7—A. Yes; I have been, how- 
éver, in vessels on short trips. 

Q. I suppose that your dealings are chiefly with the Americans 7?—A. 
No; I ran a packet for 4 years between Grand Manan and St. Andrew’s; 
that was up two years ago. 


Q. But your fishing transactions are mostly with Americans 7—A, | 


Yes; we deal mostly with them when selling our fish. 


_ Q. The people who live on Grand Manan are ordinary white people 
and British subjects; you call them natives?—A. We call them so, | 
They compare favorably, I suppose, with the fishing population gener. 


ally in New Brunswick. 
Q. You say that all the smoked herring which are caught chiefly go 


— 


to New York ?—A. Yes, and to Boston. Boston, probably, takes the | 


larger share. 


Q. How are they shipped ?—A. In our own vessels mostly ; 4 vessels, | 


owned on the island, run constantly to those ports. 


Q. Is there any particular trade between Grand Manan and Eastport, | 
in these fish ?— A. Yes; there is a small trade carried on by the poorer 
class of fishermen, with ‘their small boats ; they get more money for their — 


fish by taking them to Eastport. 

Q. And the better class of fishermen are engaged in the smoked and 
frozen herring business, and shipped directly to the States ?—A. Many 
are not shipped by the natives ; Gloucester vessels generally come there 
and buy them. 

Q. Why do you persist in calling the inhabitants of the island na- 
tives?—A. I will call them either way to suit you. I call them natives 
because they are born there. 

Q. What other fish are shipped by the inhabitants ?—A. Hake are 
shipped. 

Q. What about pickled fish ?—A. There are not very many pickled fish 
shipped anywhere ;-there are not very many put up. 


A 


Q. I understood you to say that a quantity, was put up?—A. Yes; | 


4,000 barrels. 


Q. What are they worth a barrel—$3, I suppose ?—A. When you add | 
the cost of barrel and salt, the cost may come pretty well up to that; | 
these fish are generally sold fresh, and what is considered will makea | 


barrel then brings $1.25. 

Q. I am speaking of these herring when put up: 4,000 barrels of 
pickled herring are put up at Grand Manan ?—A. Yes. 

Q. These must be worth at least $3 a barrel ?—A. Yes, when you add 
barrel and salt. 


Q. Iam speaking of them barreled as you sell them ?—A. Well, $2. 15 


is a large average price for unpickled fish. 


1 
7 


Te. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2923 


Q. Are these herring sent to New York or Boston, or where 7—A. 
They are sent all round the country more or less. 

Q. Where are they sent?—A. Some few go to Boston; I know of 
some having been sent there this season; and some go to St. John, 
New Brunswick,' and up to this year some have gone to Yarmouth, 
Nova Scotia. ; 

Q. Are many sent to Eastport ?—A. Very few go there. 

Q. Lunderstand you to say that from Grand Manan itself very few 
fish of any kind are sent to Eastport, save a few caught by the poorer 
classes ?—A. It makes in the aggregate, however, quite a considerable 
sum of money in value, because there are quite a number of poor fisher- 
men. 

Q. What is the value of fish thus sold ?—A. I could not tell you ex- 
actly. 

Q. But you come up to give the value of these fisheries 7—A. I have 
given you the value of the fisheries, but I cannot go into the details ; 
no man can. : 

Q. How do you make up the aggregate value without knowing the de- 


 tails?—A. I can make up the aggregate as to the fish caught. Take 


if 


hake, for instance; I know the number of hake sounds which were 
brought there this year, and the number of quintals of these fish that 
have been taken; I know the number of sounds which so many quintals 
of fish will make. 

Q. Do you know the number of quintals or quantity of fish that have 
been taken by poor people to Eastport ?—A. I should say that not more 


' than one-quarter of the fish that has been caught there has been taken 


to Eastport. 

Q. Have 40 quintals been so taken?—A. I say not more than one- 
quarter of the whole quantity. 

Q. Will you swear to one-quarter ?—A. No, I would not. 

Q. Will you swear that one-quarter does go there ?—A. I give that as 


- arough estimate. 


Q. Had you ever heard attention called to this matter at all before you 
came here?—A. No, not particularly; but I ran a packet there, and 
I then used to carry a good many fish as freight. 

Q. If there is so little trade between Eastport and Grand Manan, 


' how could a fish merchant in Eastport: know, by reason of the business 


so done, what the extent of the trade of the island was?—A. Well, if 
he was intimately acquainted with Grand Manan fishermen he would 
probably ask them from time to time about it, as he saw them. 

Q. For information only ?—A. Probably so. 

Q. If Eastport fishermen stated that the great bulk of the fish from 
Grand Manan passed through Eastport hands, would that be true 7—A, 
This is not the case. 

Q. Or anything like it?—A. No; of course not. 

Q. You put the value of the whole catch around Grand Manan at 
$150,000. Ido not see how you get that, according to your figures. 
You put down 10,000 quintals hake; what are they worth 7—A. About 
$2.50 a quintal, as they are taken from the water; that price includes 
sounds and livers. ; 

Q. That makes $25,000 ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Then you take 8,000 quintals of cod ?—A. Yes, 

Q. How much are they worth 7—A. $4 a quintal would be a large 
estimate. 


~ Q. That is $32,000 ?—A. Yes. 


2924 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Then there are $10,000 worth of herring (used for bait) and mis- 
cellaneous fish ?7—A. Yes, 

Q. Then there are $17,000 worth of frozen herring ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What else is there ?—A. The pickled herring. 

Q. These 4,000 barrels would be worth, at the outside, $12,000 7—A, 
They are only estimated to be worth $1.25 when sold fresh. 

Q. What are the 400,000 boxes of smoked herring worth ?—A. 15 
cents a box would be a large estimate this year; that is rather above 
the regular price. 

Q. That makes $156,000 ; and you put down $150,000 as the value of 
the whole catch of the island ?—A. Yes; and I think it is a large esti- 
inate. 

Q. A very large estimate ?—A. I did not say very large, but large. 

Q. You are making allowances, are you not ?—A. I think that is @ 
large estimate for the season. 

Q. And you undertake to say that the Campobello and Deer Island 
fishery is worth about the same, though yon know nothing about it ?— 
A. I did not say so. ; 

Q. You said you were hot very well acquainted with it. Did you 
ever ascertain what their catch was?—A. I have been around those 
islands considerably, and been among their fishermen, and I know that 
they are not more successful than our fishermen. 

Q. They may have a better catch ?—A. I do not think it. I know 
that the heft of their fishermen come a great deal over to Grand Manan 
for fish. 

Q. You say that no American vessels come to Grand Manan to fish?— 
A. Very few indeed do so. 

Q. When do they come; in the spring?—A. Well, they do not come 
at any particular season. When they hear of a school of fish about 
Grand Manan, a few vessels from Lubec and Eastport will run over. 

Q. There is no such thing as a Gloucester fleet that comes down there 
in the spring or fall?—A. I never saw one. I never knew one vessel to 
come there from Gloucester and fish inshore. 

Q. Where do they fish there ?—A. Off on the Banks, and at different 
places. 

Q. You have seen them fishing on the Banks ?—A. They come there 
’ and get bait, and that is the last we see of them. 

Q. They come to the Banks and get bait?—-A. They come there and 
get bait. 

Q. Where ?—A. From there they go we do not know where. 

Q. Where do they come for bait?—A. To Grand Manan. They do 
not catch the bait, but buy it. 

Q. They never fish around the island, within three miles of the 
shore ?—A. I have never seen any so fish. 


Q. You have never known this to be done in your life?—A. I have 


never known a Gloucester vessel fish around Grand Manan. 
Q. You never saw American vessels fishing around the island-in your 
life?—A. Within three miles of the shore; no. 
- Q. Although you have lived there since you were 7 years old ?—A. 
es. 
Q. How old are you?—A. Forty-one. 
Q. During all this time, 34 years, you have never seen an American 


vessel fishing within the three-mile limit ?—A. I never saw one do 80 _ 


myself. 


Q. I suppose that you never heard of one doing so?—A. I do not | 


know as I ever did—that is, a Gloucester vessel. 


_ / —- . 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2925 
Q. The boats do sometimes, I suppose, come over from the American 
coast to fish there?—A. Yes, but very few; these have always been 
small, open boats, with cuddies. 
| Q. Then the American people who live along the shores about East- 
port and Lubec, and away on towards the westward, you say, do not 
send boats over there at all?—A. I did not say that they did not send 
| them at all. 
Q. But you say very few do so?—A. Small boats come over there 
from different places; there is not a very large fishing population on 
' that coast. 
Q. Why do they send boats over there, if they have good fishing on 
their own coast ?—A. I do not know that they have; I did not Say so. 
Q. Do you think that they have good fishing on their own coast 7—A. 
; At certain seasons they may havea : considerable herring fishery up that 
coast in the fall. 
; . In your judgment, is the herring fishery better on the American 
-, eoast than it is around Grand Manan ?—A. Itis notsolong. Thereisa 
body of herring which comes on the sea-coast along from Mount Desert 
| to Cape Cod, to spawn, late in the fall; this is a very heavy body of fish, 
-) but they do not last a ereat while. 
| Q. They come on the American coast altogether ?—A. They come on 
_ the American coast. 
Q. In the neighborhood of Eastport 7—A. No. 
| Q. Is there any good fishing at Eastport, and westward of Lubec ?— 
| A. Their fishing, 1 should think, is very poor there. 
Q. With respect to all kinds of fish ?—A. Yes; from Mount Desert 
_ to Eastport. 
|  Q. In this quarter fishing of all kinds is poor ?7—A. Yes. 
' Q. You only put down 400 people as engaged in the Grand Manan 
‘fishery?—A. I think that is a large estimate—400 men engaged in fish- 
‘ing. 
Q. Has it been your special business to find out how many quintals, 
| barrels, and boxes of fish are taken at Grand Manan ?—A. [| judge in 
| this regard by former years. I used to trade considerably. 1 bought 
\ nearly all the hake every season. 
| Q. Are the results of former years a good guide when the fisheries 
| change every year 7?—A. We can tell that this year—5,000 pounds of 
| sounds have been prepared. 
—  Q. Do you buy the sounds?—A. No; but [am acquainted with the 
| men that buy them, and [ know how many pounds they buy. 
Q. Where did you get the figures which you have on your paper, 
' from?—A. I took them down from my memory. 
~ Q. Why did you so put them down, if you took them from your mem- 
ory ?—A. I did so to refresh my memory. 

Q. What object could you have in refreshing your memory, if it can 
enable you to put such figures down without looking at any papers ?— 
| A. If you examine the papers, you will find that I ‘have made no mis- 
takes. 

Q. What did you take them down for ?—A. To refresh my memory. 

Q. From what paper ?—A, I did not gct them from any paper. 


iQ, Did you read any of the evidence which has been taken before the 


Commission, before you came here ?—A. I read several of these depo- 
‘Sitions. 

: Whose ?—A. I read that of Walter McLaughlin. 
7 Do you know Walter McLaughlin?—A. Yes; I am acquainted 
- With him. 


2926 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 


Q. Is he a respectable man ?—A. Yes; very. 

Q. He is fish warden there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. He goes around and collects information from the inhabitants as 
to the quantity of fish taken ?—A. I have heard of him doing so in years” 

ast. 
Q. Is he a truthful man and well spoken of where you are ?—A. He 
never told me a lie that I know of. 

. Have you ever been on the mainland at all ?—A. I have. 

@. Have you ever been in the neighborhood of where Mr. James R. 
McLean carries on business 7—A. I have been up there occasionally. 

Q. How long since you last were there ?—A. I came by there in the 
steamer the other day. 

Q. I don’t mean coming by in the steamer, but when were you there 7— 

A. I don’t know that I have been there for two years on shore. 

Q. Were you ever at his place of business?—A. Never, I think. 

Q. Where is his place of business ?—A. Letite and Back Bay. 

Q. How long since you were last at Back Bay ?—A. I never was 
ashore in Back Bay in my life. 

Q. Were you ever ashore anywhere from St. George to Lepreau ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Where ?—A. I have been ashore at Beaver Harbor. 

Q. ‘Ts Beaver Harbor a large fishing place?—A. They have some 
vessels. 

Q. How long would you stay there ?—A. I went into harbor there. 

Q. You went into harbor? Is that the extent of your knowledge of 
the mainland 7—A. No. Lam acquainted with McLean and with a num- 
ber of fishermen that belong over on that shore. 

Q. From your personal knowledge? Have you any personal knowl- 
edge apart from what you may have acquired talking to these people ?— 

A. I have quite a knowledge of how many are engaged in the fishing, 
and I know they are not more successful than our own fishermen. 

Q. How long since you last were there on the mainland?—A. Well, 
it has been, I suppose, two years. 

Q. You know McLean ?—A. I know McLean, not intimately. I am 
acquainted with him. Ihave met him at Kastport, and at ourown place — 
this summer. : | 

Q. Did you ever talk to him ?—A. Yes. 

Q. I suppose it is possible he is as well informed as to the value of the 
fisheries on the mainland as you are?—A. He may be. 

Q. Probably better ?—A. He probably has his idea and I have mine. 

Q. That is not the question. I ask you whether he is any better able 
to give an opinion as to the value of the fisheries on the mainland than 
you ?—A. He may be better able. 

Q. Have you any doubt that he has better means of information than 
you ?—A. I don’t know that he has better means. 

Q. Although he resides there and carries on business there 7—A. 
Well, there is a large extent of coast. He is located at one place, and 
he is. as far from the extremes as [ am. 

Q. What part of the coast of the mainland have you any acquaintance 
with there ?—A. Deer Island and Campobello. 4 
Q. Do you call Deer Island a part of the mainland ?—A. Well, St. 

Andrew’s; I have run a packet there three or four years. 

Q. And’ running a packet would give you a knowledge of the fishing — | 
. business, you think. When did you stop running the packet ?—A. I 
have not run it for two years. | 

@. How long were you running it before that 1A, Four years. 

| 


| 
Pe 
yas 


li eee 


AWARD OF TIIE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2927 


Q. For the last two years you have stopped?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the only means of information you have as to the fisheries at 
3t. Andrew’s is that you have run a packet between Grand Manan and 
3t. Andrew’s ?—A. Yes; and bought fish while I was running. 

Q. What other places have you knowledge of?—A. What other places 
do you want a knowledge of? 

Q. I want you to tell me what knowledge you have. I should want 
you to have a knowledge of the whole mainland before you come here 
to’contradict other witnesses.—A. Do these witnesses have a knowledge 
of the whole mainland ? 

_ Q. Those who bave given evidence have. What other places do you 

know between St. Andrew’s and the headwaters ?—A. With the whole 

of St. Croix River I am more or less acquainted. St. Stephen. 

 Q. St. Stephen is not a fishing place at all.—aA. If y ou will name 
any particular place. 

(Q. If you have a knowledge of the mainland, you are better able to 

name them than [.—A. I have told you I was not very well acquainted 

| with Back Bay. 

-| Q. Are you acquainted at all with the fisheries at Back Bay ?7—A. I 
am acquainted with the fishermen. 

Q. Then you put your opinion as regards the mainland fisheries against 
the opinion of James R. McLean, do you, or Mr. Lord?—A. I have 
nothing to do with Mr. McLean’s opinion whatever. I give my own 

pinion. I did not come here to come in conflict with any other man’s 
Eeinion, but simply to give my obras for what it is worth, to the best 

of my knowledge. 
 Q. And you admit that your means of knowledge can’t possibly be so 
good as those of a man who is engaged in business on the mainland ?— 
\A. They are as to Grand Manan. 
1 | \ Q. i don’t mean that—A. Why do you confine yourself to the main- 
land 
Q. Because that is part of what you spoke of, and I cannot refer to 


_jhalf a dozen things at once. 1 will come to Grand Manan in a minute.— 
A. I didn’t give the mainland so accurately. I said I thought it was so. 
. Q. You said a person was mistaken if he would undertake to say—— 
A. I say that if he would undertake to say it was so large he was mis- 


| 


| taken. 
| Q. You put that opinion against men who have been engaged on the 
| mainland ?—A. If I had time I could prove it. 


| Q. Do you swear that your means of information in reference to the 
| mainland fisheries are as good as the means of information of persons 


engaged on the mainland in these fisheries ?—A. I don’t know that I 
have any business to swear to any such thing at all. I didn’t come here 
for that. 

Q. If any person came here to swear that the astene around Grand 
Manan was worth $500,000, or $350,000 more than you put it at, that is 
beyond all reason according to you A.W ell, I can’t figure it out where 
they get it. 

Q. Do you say it is beyond reason ?—A. I should say it was. 

Q. You say it is beyond all reason to put it at $500,000?—A. I do. 


| There are 400 men; and if they catch $1,250 worth of fish a year, each 


| Man—some men are not very fortunate fishing ; ; Some would catch $500 
and others would have to catch $2,000—then it is most successful fishing 
on this coast or anywhere else I know of. 

- Any man who swears that, in your judgment, must either be will- 


4 


%~ R Po] 
2928 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 


fully stating what is false, or else has not the means of information ?— 
A, [have nothing to say of anybody else’s statements. 
Q. Did you see “that some of the American fishermen had themselves 
put it at five hundred thousand dollars a year ?—A. No. 
Q. Wouldn’t it have altered your views if you had 2—A. No; my 
views are fixed. 
Q. They were fixed before you came ?—A. I didn’t come to make any 
mistatements. 
Q. Where did you read the evidence ?—A. Some of it in the other | 
room. 
Q. Whose evidence did you read ?—A. McLaughlin’s and McLean’s, 
and part of Fisher’s. 
Q. Did you read Lord’s?—A. No. | 
Q. Have you read Fisher’s 7—A. I read part of it. | 
Q. Now, Fisher says, in answer to Mr. Trescot—I suppose he has a | 
| 
| 


knowledge of the island, has he?—A. He should; he has fished there a | 
considerable many years. | 

Q. He is asked, ‘* What would be the annual value of the fishery at | 
Grand Manan, taking the opposite coast, and taking the neighborhood | 
generally, from your experience as a man of business with some practi- — 

cal acquaintance with the operations yourself as a merchant ? Whag | | 

would be the annual value, including Grand Manan and the coast from 
Letite to St. Andrew’s and Lepreau?” And he answers: “I shoul | 
set the value of the fish caught at Grand Manan at not over $400,000, 
They might go $500,000, but I think if I had $500,000 I would have 
some left.”.—A. I should think he would. 

Q. You see he puts it at $500,000 7A. He says “not over $400,000.7 

Q. He says it might go $500,000. Do you mean to say that he would 
state it was not over $400,000, and it might go $500,000, when it was 
only $150,000? Would he cover that meaning with those words 7?—A, 
I have nothing to do with any other man’s statement here. If what Ll 
say conflicts with any other man’s statement it is not my fault. 

@. You won’t give any judgment upon that point ?—A. I have noth- 
ing to say. 

Q. Well, why did you answer Mr. Trescot when he put questions to 
you as to other persons coming here and making particular statements? 

Mr. TrEScOT. I did not do it. 

Mr. THoMSON. You said you would not give him any particular names, 
but if persons came here and swore that such and such was the case, 
you asked him if that would be correct. 

Mr. TRESCOT. Quite so. 


By Mr. Thomson : 


Q. Then Mr. Fisher is entirely astray according to you?—A. His 
statement is large. .« : 

Q. What is the extent of your business? You say you kept a hotel 
during the summer and fished in the winter. Where did’you fish when- 
ever you weut ?—-A. For herring ? 

Q. Yes. What is the extent of your catch ?—A. Well, I could not 
say exactly—I never kept any minutes—but I might have got $200 
worth for my share. 

. Q. Is that the extent of your fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, there is Mr. Lakeman. Do you know him?—A. Yes; I am 
well acquainted with him. 

Q. This question is put to him: 


(. How much do these several totals make ?—A. $133, 450. 
Q. Thin’ a little, and think what you meant by telling us a few minutes ago that, © 


| , Sel. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2929 


in your opinion, the value of the catch of the fisheries of Grand Manan Island only 
amounted to $50,000 or at the most to $60,000 7—A. $500,000 I meant; did I say $50,000 ? 
If [ did, that was a slip of the tongue, and if I said $60,000 I meant $600,000. 

Q. That is the annual proceeds of the Grand Manan fisheries?—A. No; the value 
of the hake-sounds is yet to be considered. 

He puts it down at $500,000 without the hake sounds. You think 
that is quite wild?—A. I think you must have confused him. 

Q. No. This was Mr. Trescot examining him ?—A. I think his head 
was not clear. 

Q. He was entirely wrong about that ?—A. I think the statement was 
wild when he says $500,000 or $600,000. 

Mr. TrREScorT. Didn’t he try afterward to give the items and find that 
he could not bring them over $160,000 ? 

Mr. THomson. Did you bring this gentleman to show that Lakeman 
was entirely wrong? 

Q. Then you say you catch $200 worth in the course of a year? Do 
you buy any ?—A. 1 am not engaged in buying at preseut. I have 
bought. 

Q. How long since you were last engaged in buying ?7—A. When I 
was running a packet I bought more or less. 

Q. For the purpose of cooking in your vessel ?—A. No; tosell again. 

@. How many would you buy ?—A. I never kept any minutes of what 
I bought or sold. I don’t know what bearing it has on this subject. 

Q. Just this. That you were pleased to state in answer to Mr. Trescot 
that you engaged in buying and selling. I want to see to what extent 
you bought and sold. You got twoor three barrels of fish and sold 
them at St. Andrew’s ?—A. No; we sold them at Eastport. It would 
glat the market at St. Andrew’s. 

Q. Do you make the statement that two or three barrels would glut 
the market at St. Andrew’s? That is a town of 3,000 or 4,000 inhab- 
itants, and yet you say it would glut the market 7—A. I say we sold 
them at Eastport. 

“4 How many did you sell?—A. I never kept any record of what I 
sold. 

Q. Can you swear to 50 barrels 7—A. I van’t swear to any particular 
quantity. 

Q. Will you swear you sold as many as 50 ?—A. I will swear I have 
sold- as many as that. 

-Q. And what did you catch those herring for, those you fished your- 
self ?—A. I caught them to sell. 

Q. When you say you fished in winter, did you make a business of 
it?—A. We went fishing in winter. 

- Q. You say “we.” Are you speaking of yourself personally ?—A. 
We generally fish in company there; two or three boats fishing. 

-Q. And your share amounted to $200, probably, a year, and with this 
experience you come and say that the fishery is only worth $150,000, 
and that you have lived'there 34 years, and yet during all that time 
you never saw an American vessel fishing around Grand Manan.—A. I 
said a Gloucester vessel. 

Q. I put the question to you whether you had seen an Anierican ves- 


Mr. DANA. And every time he answered he confined his answer to 
Gloucester vessels. . 

; By Mr. Thomson: 

_ Q. You told me in so many words that during that whole time no 
American vessel fished within the limits, and that you never heard_of 
184 F 


- 


| de 


2930 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


it—A. I said Gloucester vessels. You asked me if there was not a © 
large fleet of Gloucester vessels. : 

Q. I asked you as to American vessels—A. As I understood, you © 
referred to the Gloucester fleet ; if there was pot a large Gloucester fleet 
that came down. 

Q. Then I understand you now to admit that American vessels, not — 
from Gloucester, do come ?—A. I said a few small vessels and boats. . 

Q. What do you call a few small vessels? Just exclude the boats © 
from your mind altogether.—A. Well, perhaps there might be a dozen. 
There might be a dozen vessels from Lubec. 

Q. At one time?—A. Yes. &§ 

Q. Fishing ?—A. Fishing off andon. Sometimes they would set nets © 
for bait and go away off. ‘ 

Q. Would they fish within three miles ?—A. They would not cod-fish 
within three miles. 

Q. That is an evasion. Who asked about cod-fishing ?—A. I said 
they set their nets inshore and took bait. 

Q. Would they fish within three miles?—A. No; they would only 
set their nets for bait to catch line-fish. 

Q. That is what the Gloucester vessels did, didn’t they ?—A. No. I 
never knew Gloucester vessels set nets to catch bait for themselves. 

Q. How many Gloucester vessels come down to catch bait ?—A. It is 
hard to average. Some years more and some years less. 

Q. What season is it that they come down ?—A. Along early in the 
spring they begin to come, after the frozen season is over, and along 
through the winter occasionally a vessel. ° 

Q. How many would come down at one time?—A. I may have seen 
ten vessels lying at one time—never more than that that I recollect. 

Q. Will you swear you have not seen as many as 25 or 30?—A. I 
would be quite safe in swearing so, I think. 

Q. Is ten the largest number you are certain of? —A. Ten is the largest 
number I think. . 

Q. How long would they remain?—A. It depended upon the bait. 

Q. Did they come in and give their orders for bait ?—A. They came ~ 
in and tried to engage a boat. 

Q. Did they tell each fisherman or a number of fishermen how many: — 
barrels they wanted ?—A. Yes. . 

Q. And then these fishermen tried to catch bait for them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They would come down in fleets of ten at a tlme?—A. I said ten 
was as many as I had seen. 

Q. And their place would be supplied with ten more when they went 
away ?—A. Well, it might happen once in the year that there were ten. 
I said they came down quite early in the spring. 

Q. Didn’t you tell me a while ago that you never heard of the Glou- 
cester fleet coming down there at all?—A. No; I said not to fish. 

Q. You didn’t swear to me that you never heard of the Gloucester 
fleet coming down to Grand Manan ?—A. I said fishing. 

Q. Is there not a certain fleet that comes down there and is well — 
known to come down there ?—A. I have known as high probably as ten. 

Q. Do they come down every year?—A. They come down every — 
year. 

Q. Is that known as the Gloucester fishing-fleet among the inhabitants 
of Grand Manan ?—A. It is known as the Gloucester fleet as far as it 
goes, 

Q. And these vessels come in, and the skippers engage the inhabitants — 
to fish for them and supply them as fast as possible 7—A. Yes. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2931 


Q. How much do they pay a barrel ?—A. So much a hundred gen- 
erally. 
No. 76. 


JosEPH Rowe8, of Gloucester, Mass., called on behalf of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Foster : 


Question. Your name is Joseph. There is a Samuel Rowe in Glou- 
cester ?—Answer. Yes; he is a brother of mine. 

Q. You belong to the firm of Rowe & Jordan?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were born in Gloucester 7—A. Yes. 

Q. How old are you 7—A. Fifty-two, come December. 

Q. In early life you were a fisherman for a good many years ?—A. It 
| was always my business, fishing, from a boy. 

ge was the first year you were in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?~— 
A. 1836. , 

Q. How many years have you been there, in all, for mackerel 7—A. 
| Twenty-one. 

Q. When were you first a skipper in the gulf ?—A. In 1848. 

Q. From 1848 how many continuous years did you go as skipper in 
the gulf ?—A. Sixteen. 

Q. Ending in what year?—A. 1864. 
| Q. In 1864 you ceased to go to sea ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What firm did you go into?—A. Rowe & Smith. 
'Q. How long were you in that?—A. Three years. 

Q. Then in 1867 what did you establish? Your present firm ?—A. 
| That would be 1868. | 
Q. How many vessels has your firm usually had ?—A. We have had 


) from eight to thirteen. 


Q. I believe when you were in the gulf you were one of the successful 
» ones ?—A. Well, yes; I always got a good voyage. 4 

Q. Take the last year you were there; how many mackerel did you ° 
/get?—A. One thousand one hundred barrels. 

Q. In two trips?—A. Well, we went two trips; we sent home one of 


| them, and took the other home ourselves. 


Q. Where were those 1,100 caught ?—A. They were all caught at the 
Magdalens, except 100 barrels, or a little over 100—103, I think. 

Q. Where were those caught 7—A. At Margaree, and from Margaree 
to Mabou. 

Q. How long were you taking these 103 barrels 7—A. One day. 

Q. How near shore?—A. Well, we commenced about three miles, 
> iad as I can recollect; but we went nearer than that, not over a 
mile. 

Q. That day’s fishing was inshore ?—A. All inshore. 

Q. What month was it in ?—A. In October. 

Q. Now, without dwelling in detail upon your seventeen years’ ex- 
perience as skipper, I want to know where your chief fishing-grounds 
were during those seventeen years ?—A. My chief fishing-ground was in 
the Magdalens, although I have got trips in the bend of the island, and 
I have gone on the Banks Bradley and Orphan. Early trips always on 
Bradley and Orphan, and poor mackerel. 


-Q. Do you mean early in the summer ?—A. Early in the spring. 

Q. Where did you get the best mackerel ?—A. The best mackerel in 
the latter years was at the Magdalens, although I have caught as good 
in the bend of the island as I have ever caught anywhere, and I have 
caught as good at Cape Breton as ever anywhere. 


u 
> 


Pa ’ ‘ a 


2932 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. At what particular place at the Magdalens did you get the best 
mackerel ?—A. Bird Rock, I believe, was the best I would say any where, 
I suppose Bird Rock mackerel were a little ahead, but not a great deal 
of these mackerel are caught there. 

Q. What mackerel are there anywhere that compare with the Bird 
Rock mackerel ?—A. Block’ [sland mackerel are the only mackerel I 
ever saw. 

Q. But, except that, Bird Rock is as good as you have ever seen ?— 
A. There is but very few of that kind anywhere, but there were more at 
Block Island than at Bird Rock. 

Q. Now, explain as to your fishing in the bend of the island. How 
much fishing have you done there, and at what distance from the shore 
have you generally fished ?—A. I don’t remember ever catching any 
mackerel of any account nearer than from six to seven miles, although 
I might have caught a few. We always went in and came out of har- 
bors, but I never thaught of heaving to and trying for them until we 
were Six or eight miles off. 

Q. What is the difficulty fishing within three miles of the bend of 
the island with a vessel ?—A. Well, I never found any difficulty in fish- 
ing in, if the mackerel were there, but the mackerel is scattered, what 
there is there. There is no body of them. There are more outside. 

Q. How far out do you go to get a body of mackerel large enough to 
make it pay a vessel to fish ?—A. From six to fifteen miles. Fifteen 
miles just the rise of the land, so that you can just see New London 
Head. That is a better fishing ground than anywhere else around the 
island. We always made New London Head our mark. 

Q. How high is the land at New London Head ?—A. Not very high, 
but it shows more prominently than the other land around. You can 
see that further than the land on each side of it. 

Q. Well, how many years do you suppose of the sixteen or seventeen — 
you were skipper did you fish in the bend of the island ?—A. Well, I 
» never fished the whole year through. I suppose I fished more or less 
there for six or seven years. I could not say just the number of years. 

Q. Have you ever fished up Bay Chaleurs?—A. No; I never caught 
ten barrels there in my life. 

Q. Have you been up there ?—A. Twice only. 

Q. Did you try for fish ?7—A. I tried both times I went. 

Q. But unsuccessfully 7—A. I never thought much of it. 

Q. Have you ever fished up the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off Seven 
Islands, so called ?—A. I have been there one year. 

Q. When was that? Do you remember what year it was?—A. Well, 
I think it was in 1862. 

Q. What did you succeed in doing up by the Seven Islands in 1862 ?— 
A. I caught 180 barrels. We were off Fox River, on the opposite side, 
on the south side of the gulf. 

Q. How near inshore ?—A. We caught 80 barrels within a quarter of 
a mile of land. 

Q. The rest, how far out ?—A. The others fifteen miles off, right off 
into the gulf; "that i is, I think about that. The land is very high. We © 
might have been further, but we were wide out. 

Q. What is the width across: there ?—A. I think it is about, I should: 
judge, sixty or seventy miles. 

@. From Seven Islands across to what point?—A. To Fox River. 
(Witness consults map, and points out the places where the fish were 
caught.) 


~~ * A 


rs 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2933 


Q. How many have you caught in the vicinity of Seven Islands?—A. 
I never caught any there. 

Q. In what places in the gulf, so far as you know, are the most mack- 
erel caught within three miles of the shore?—A. About Cape Breton, 
as far as my experience goes. 

Q. Near what point?—A. From Mabou to Margaree is the best place. 

Q. At what part of the season do they catch these there ?—A. I never 
went there to fish until October. . 

Q. How long did you ever stop there?7—A. Never long at one time. 
The mackerel strike there; they may be plenty to-day and gone to- 
morrow. 

Q. That is where you got your 103 barrels in 1864?7—A. Yes; that 
filled me up. 

Q. How many mackerel, on an average, must a Gloucester vessel take 
before there is a profit to the vessel? I understand that this is a ques- 
tion that does not admit of a definite answer, but I want to draw out 
your opinion.—A. It is hard to determine. There is some difference in 
the prices. 

Q. Yes, there is a difference in the price and quality.—A. There is also 
a difference in the bills; but if we don’t get 400 barrels we don’t calcu- 
late we are going to do much. ; 

Q. You were in the Gulf of St. Lawrence most of the time during the 
Reciprocity Treaty, and you were there a number of years before. I 
suppose you knew about the cutters and the driving off of the fisher- 
men that came within 3 miles ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were not there during the license seasons, because you left in 
1864. Now, what is your view as to the importance of the restriction 
against fishing within 3 miles to the United States fishermen ?—A. 
‘What was that ? 

Q. How much consequence, in your judgment, is the prohibition to 
fish within the 3-mile limit to the United States fishermen ?—A. Well, 
if I was going myself, I should not consider it anything worth paying 
for; but as Iam situated now, I think I should be willing to pay, per- 


| haps, 50 cents a ton. 


Q. What is the difference between going yourself and sending your 
captains ?7—A. We have skippers that sometimes go in and try when 
‘there is no occasion for it. If they try and are taken, it is just as bad 
as 3 they caught fish. If I went myself, I would not be running that 
risk. : 


Q. You think you could fish successfully without going within 3 
miles ?—A. I do. 

Q. Now, your present firm, organized in 1868, has had about how 
many vessels fishing for mackerel; did you say 7—A. Well, we had 
some years more and some years less. 

Q. Have you a statement? By the way, I want to know if you 
‘brought any books from home ?—A. No. 

Q. Any memoranda that you have made up here ?—A. I have only 
memoranda for the last two or three years in the bay. In 1874 we had 
four in the bay. 

Q. What did they do?—A. They got 1,847 barrels. 


|} Q. How many had you on our shore ?—A. Five. 


Q. What did they do?—A. They got 3,044. 

Q. Go on to 1875.—A. We had one in the bay and got 153 barrels. 
We had four on our shores, and got 3,784 barrels. In 1876 we had none 
im the bay. On our shore we had five, and got 5,578. 

Q. Were those seiners ?—A. All seiners. 


2934 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. In 1877 how many have you had in the bay 7—A. We have had 
four. 

Q. Now, tell me how you happen to have sent them to the gulf this 
year after your better experience on our shores and poor experience in 
the bay for the two previous years ?—A. Well, our vessels went south 
early in the season to run fresh mackerel to New York. The mackerel 
were plenty, and they expected a big catch; but in June, when we ought 
to have caught them, we caught none, and reports came down that the 
mackerel were plenty this way. We therefore supposed they had passed 
into the gulf. 

@. What do you mean by reports coming 7—A. Well, we got word 
from the strait. We had no letters, but we always hear, and as a mat- 
ter of fact there was mackerel here in June, and those that came down 
early got trips of mackerel, poor mackerel. But when our vessel got 
down they were gone, and they have been scarce ever since. 

Q. Let me see what your vessels have done this year.—A. The Helen 
M. Crosby took eight barrels. She was in something over a fortnight. 
She had gone in and tried all around the bay and found there was noth- 
ing; came out and fished on our shores. 

Q. Did she have any better luck there ?—A. Yes ; she packed out 750 
barrels before I came away, besides what she got in the bay. 

Q. What other schooner ?—A. The Golden ‘Hind. She came in just 
before I came away, with 75 barrels. 

Q. How long was she getting these ?—A. About eight weeks. 

Q. What other vessels ?—A. The Herbert M. Rogers and the Barra- 
couta. They are not at home. I heard the Barracouta had 100, and 
the other 215. 

Q. How long has the Herbert M. Rogers been in the gulf ?—A. He 
wrote the day before the breeze. They had a gale down there. I think 
it was the 22d of September. 

Q. How long has she been in the gulf ?—A. I think about five weeks. 

Q. Has she got back ?—A. No; she hadn’t got home when [I left, but 
at last accounts she had a little over 200 barrels. 

Q. Now, are the seines successful in the gulf?—A. They never have 
been. I don’t think they can seine there to make it pay. 


Q. Did these vessels of yours go prepared to seine ?—A. The Helen . 


M. Crosby and the Herbert M. Rogers carried seines. The Herbert M. 
Rogers never set hers at all. That is, the skipper by letter said the 
seine was no good, and he weut down to Souris and landed it. 

Q. And caught his fish with hook and line ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Why are not seines successful in the gulf?—A. Well, the water is 
shoal and the bottom rough. There are several causes. If you go off 
in deep water on Bradley or Orphan there are a great many herring that 


get mixed up with the mackerel. They mesh in the seine, and it takes. 


so long to pick them out. They die and sink the seine. 

Q. Something has been said about making shoal seines, to adapt them 
to the gulf fishing —A. Well, they can catch a few that way, but it is 
pretty hard to catch mackerel in a shoal seine, that is, the purse-seine. 

Q. How much importance do you attach, as a man engaged in the 
fishing business, to the mackerel fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
now ?—A. Well, I don’t think much of it. It has gone down. It used 
to be worth something once, but of late years we don’t think anything 
of it at all. We could do about as well without seining there. 

Q. What proportion of your business is mackerel and what proportion 
is codfish ?—A. Well, I should say one-third of the proceeds is mackerel 
and two-thirds codfish. 


=—w 


i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2935 


Q. In money value ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever sent to Grand Manaa vessels for herring ?—A. We 
have sent once or twice. 

Q. Did they go to catch fish, or how did they get them ?—A. They 
always bought them. We always sent the money. 

Q. Did they go with any preparation for fishing 7—A. Not any at all. 
We never thought of such a thing. 

Q. Have you ever been yourself or sent a vessel to Newfoundland 
for berring ?—A. I have been once myself and sent some two or three 
winters. 

Q. How were the herring procured there ?—A. They were always 
bought. We never made preparations to fish. - 

Q. Well, were you ever personally engaged in balibut fishing ?—A. 
| Yes. I used to go to the George’s Banks a good many years. 

Q. How far are the George’s Banks trom Seal [sland ?—A. 70 miles, 
/ as near as I can recollect. 

Q. How near Seal Island can you go?—A. I have been two or three 
trips when I could just see the light, on a clear night. Right on the 
edge of the ground, right on the falling-off, there is where the halibut 
,used to be taken when I[ was there. But [ don’t think there is any 
there now. It was broken up. It didn’t last but three or four years 
» when I was there. 

Q. Then you don’t consider it a fishing ground, even 15 miles from 
Seal Island Light? Did you ever fish within three miles for halibut ?— 
A. Never. 

Q. How many halibut fishers are there from Gloucester ?—A. 28, I 
believe. The number shifts a little. I think two or three more have 
been added. 

Q. How recently have you built a fishing schooner in Gloucester or 
» had one built ?—A. We had one built last winter. 

Q. When was she completed ?—A. In April, I think. 

Q. Now what was the size, and what was the cost ?—A. She was 74 
tons, new measurement. 

Q. Register, 1 suppose ?—A. 110 carpenters’. 

Q. What did she cost 7?—A. A little over $7,200. 

-Q. In bargaining for building a schooner, you bargain to pay by car- 
penters’ measurement ?—A.° Yes. 

Q. How much a ton, carpenters’ measurement 7—A. Well, it differs ; 

$45 to $47 a ton. 
Q. But you must have paid more for this?—A. You have to rig it 
_afterwards. That is simply for the hull. We paid $4,950 for her. We 
never reckon by the ton. We give the dimensions, what we want, and 
they give us the figures what they will build her for. 

-Q. What does that include ?—A. The hull and spars. 

Q. Was that as low as a vessel that size, first class, could be built 
this year in Gloucester ?—A. Yes, sir; it was. They might since that, 
perhaps, build for a dollar less on the ton. Perhaps a difference of $200 
wight be made in the whole cost. They might build a vessel that size 
now for $7,000. 

Q. Do you know the quality of the schooners built here in the prov- 
} ince ?—A. Yes; I think I do. 

_Q. How many new schooners built here have you seen? Have you 
Seen the best built here within a year or two?—A. No. 

Q. You would know whether they have altered materially or not ?— 

A. They are generally built of what we call hard wood, that is, fishing- 


. 
* 


> 
, a * 
" —— =. 2 oe 


2936 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


vessels; of course they have soft-wood vessels, too. They build of 
beech or birch. 

Q. What are the Gloucester vessels built of ?—A. White oak mostly, 
and gray oak. 

Q. How much difference in the tonnage would you estimate in the 
cost of a Gloucester and a provincial vessel, such as you have referred 
to ?—A. I suppose a provincial vessel, in the best way it could be built— 
we always calculate one of our vessels twelve years old is as good as 
one of theirs new of the same tonnage, and I guess every one else, ves- 
sel owners that know, will say the same. I don’t know. 

Q. What do you say about the demand for salt mackerel in the mar- 
ket within the past few years, compared with what it used to be ?—A, 
It has fallen off a great deal. 

Q. Why ?—A. Well, there are different opinions, different reasons. 
Some lay it to the lake-fishing, the whitefish. 

Q. What do you know about the quantities of these?—A. Well, I 
don’t know anything by experience only what I hear said by the dealers 
out there. They tell me, those that have gone out there from our place 
and are in the business, that a great many are caught and that they are 
sold cheap, and take the place of mackerel unless mackerel are low. 

Q. At what price per barrel can a large quantity of salt mackerel be 
disposed of freely in the market ?—A. Well, they don’t go very readily. 

Q. Until they are down to $7?—A. Well, that is a large amount. 

Q. Sold from where ?—A. From our place. That is about what they 
ranged last year, and they went off very well. This year they went up 
to $12, and were very scarce, and the market dragged. Finally, they 
went down to $9.50. 

Q. Why will not the people buy them at the high prices?—A. I don’t 
know any reason unless they get these lake fish cheaper. 

Q. What quantity of high-priced mackerel, extra No. 1’s, mess mack- 
erel of the very best quality, costing $20 a barrel, can be disposed of in 
the United States markets?—A. Well, I have no way of knowing, but 
I should not think over from 8,000 to 10,000 barrels. I don’t know as 
that many. I could not tell how many. 

Q. Where is the market for the consumption of the very best mack- 
erel, the highest priced, chiefly ?—A. Philadelphia takes the best mack- | 
erel, most of them. 

Q. In what direction do the poorer qualities go 7—A. I could not tell. 
I have never sent any. We always sell our fish at home. I suppose 
they scatter all over the country and in the Western countries. 

Q. How do the sales of fresh mackerel compare of late years with 
what they used to be 7—A. That has increased. It increases every year. 

@. What would you estimate to be the annual value of the fresh 
mackerel consumed in the United States ?—A. I don’t know that I could. 
give avery good estimate. Somewhere from three to four hundred 
thousand barrels, I should think. 

Q. How is it about salt codfish ?—A. That hasimproved. They catch 
more fish and they go off readily at fair prices. 

Q. Do you know how far West the fresh fish from the seaboard goes ? 
—A. Well, I don’t know. I have no way of knowing, but I think they 
send them to Chicago in the winter season ; as far as that. 

Q. We have evidence of their going further than that.—A. Well, I 
never shipped any fresh fish. 

Q. Taking the corresponding qualities of bay and shore mackerel, 
which, for the last few years, has sold at the higher prices ?—A. Well, 
our shore mackerel has brought the best price for the last number of — 


| _ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2937 


| years. The mackerel has been poor in the bay, poorer than it used to 
be, for the last four, five, or six years. 

| Q. What effect in your judgment would the imposition of a duty of 
| $2 a barrel on all grades of mackerel imported from the provinces have 

| upon the market in the United States ?—A. Well, I suppose it would 

| have the effect of lowering them some. It is pretty hard to determine. 

| Idon’t know that I should say. Of course you put so many more mack- 

| erel into the market they would not fetch so much. 

_ @. Who would have to pay the duty? Would it come out of the 

| people that eat it or out of the provincial sellers ?—A. I should say out 

, of the provincial sellers. 

, Q. Why—what makes you think so?—A. We take the most mack- 

_ erel, and our mackerel determines the price. 

, Q, Don’t you think they could raise the price of theirs and yours all 

around !—A. No; I don’t think it could be done, because we have the 

» most fish. 

Q. Well, if a duty of a dollar a barrel were imposed on herring, do 
you think it could be imported ?—A.: No; I don’t think it could. It is 
_a low-priced fish. 

Q. Have you ever known mixed trips of cod and mackerel where a 

vessel went out to catch whichever it could and brought back part of a 

cargo of each kind ?—A. Well, I don’t know that Lever knew. I have 
» heard of some tell about going some years half and half, but 1 guess it 
| never amounted to much. 

Q. Has any such thing happened from Gloucester ?—A. I haven’t 
I heard of one for a great many years. 

Q. What has been the course of their fishing down in Massachusetts 
| compared with Gloucester; have they increased or decreased ?—A. They 
| have decreased. 

Q. The business has concentrated in Gloucester ?7—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. Are you a protectionist or free-trader in principle?—A. A free- 
) trader. 

Q. Do you believe in free trade?—A. Ido. I think there ought to 
be free trade all over the world. 


+ Q. You think so?—A. Yes; I would like to see it so. 


Q. In your own country are you a free-trader or a protectionist ?—A. 


| Well, as far as fish goes ? 


Q. No; generally.—A. Well, [ am a protectionist, if that is the case, 
unless it would be all over the ‘whole world. 

Q. I notice in your statement that the prices of the mackerel seem to 
fluctuate a great deal. Last year it was $7. This year it was $12 for 

0.2. In explaining that you said it was on account of the catch being 
very small this year 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. I suppose the price is governed by the catch, whatever the catch 
ist?—A. That is it. 

Q. Well, for this year, I saw a statement in the Monetary Times yes- 
tay morning that the whole catch this year did not amoant to 50,000 

barrels on your coast. Is that correct ?—A. I have no way of knowing, 

bat I should not think.it was that much, if I was going to guess on it; 
but the vessels have been coming in since. 

Ps Well, that is a very small catch, indeed?—A. Yes; that is small 

or late years. 


were excluded altogether from the best fishing-grounds in the 


w 
ae 
£5 +. 


- aa 


| 
| 
| 
Ee eto" I suppose if a large catch was made in the bay, and if your 
. 
| 


\ 


2938 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


bay, and the catch on your coast was very small, as it is this year, in | 
an exceptional case like that the duty would be paid by the consumer, 
because the price would go up ?—A. Well, if you had all the mackerel, 
of course. 

Q. Well, if the statement was true that three-fourths of the mackerel 
that are taken out of the gulf are taken within the limits, that would 
have an appreciable effect upon the question who paid the duty 7—A. I 
think it would. 

Q. It is just a question of fact 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you say a Gloucester vessel twelve years old is as good as a 
provincial vessel new. How long do those vessels last? They must 
last avery good length of time.—A. Well, we lose a great many, but we 
have vessels thirty and forty vears old. 

Q. I suppose thirty years old would not be beyond the average length 
She ought to last?—A. If she was not lost. Yes, sir; they will last that 
time and longer. 

Q. You said, of late years there were no vessels fishing cod and _hali- 
but promiscuously, but it used to be so ?7—A. I said fishing cod and 
mackerel promiscuously. 

Q. A gentleman said yesterday there was about 100 vessels of the 
cod-fishing fleet that were accustomed to take more or less halibut. LIL 
think it was Mr. Pew. He said 31 vessels devoted themselyes exclu- 
sively to halibut-fishing, and a hundred of the cod-fishers took occa- 
sional catches of halibut ?—A. Thisis right. They go with ice and bait 
and get both. 

Q. On the Seal Island ground you have never been in fishing close to 
the shore ?—A. No. 

Q. You can’t tell what is taken there ?—A. I could not tell anything 
about it; but we never knew anything about its being a fishing-ground. 
Never thought of such a thing. I could not say there was none, but if 
there was I could not tell where any came from. : 

Q. I presume they came from the sea?—A. I mean the vessels. 

Q. How many years since you have been there 7?—A. I haven’t been 
there since 1852 or 1853, 1854 and 1855, I was only there one or two 
trips, but before I left the halibut all broke up there. 

Q. I think you would not care about saying what the fact is now 7— | 
A. No; any more than that I know where our own vessels go. 

Q. You don’t profess to know where the 31 halibut-fishers go every 
year, do you?—-A. Yes; I know where the other vessels go as well as 
my own. 

Q. Well, do you know where the 100 that catch both cod and halibut 
go?—A. Yes; they go to the Georges. : 

Q. Iam not speaking of what your general belief is, but now you 
are giving evidence as to your knowledge.—A. Well, we send them to. 
the Georges, and they come back and say they have been to the Georges, 
and tell me what part of the Bank they have fished on, in how deep 
water, and all that. Iam as familiar with the Bank as they are. 

Q. Do you know anything of the New London vessels? Do you 
know where they go?—A. No, I don’t know anything about them. 

Q. I just want to know if you would contradict a witness who lived 
on the spot where we say the halibut is caught and who said he saw + 
them caught there ?—A. No. 

Q. You haven’t been personally in the Newfoundland herring business 
yourself ?—A. No. Only one trip. 

Q. You have given a statement of what vessels you have had in the © 
bay last year as compared with the shore. I notice a great many of | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2939 


these statements have been made up referring to late years. Can you 
give me a statement of what your vessels have done in the gulf during 


- the continuance of the Reciprocity Treaty, what the catch was, and 


what vessels you have had, and a similar statement as to your shores 
for that period ?—A. No, I haven’t got it. 

Q. Would you say, as an experienced man, that the catch on your 
shores was as great during the Reciprocity Treaty as in the bay 7—A. 
No, sir; because there was not so many vessels went into it. There 
might be some years. 

Q. Take them through, from ’54 to 66, the catch in the bay during 


| those years you acknowledge to be larger 7—A. I think it was. I think 


there were more vessels went there. 
Q. Could not you give me a statement of the returns of your vessels ; 


_ eould you make it up and send it tome?—A. Yes; I could take it from 


the books at home. 
Q. What was your average catch during Reciprocity ?—A. Well, I 


' have not been fishing since 13864. 


SS ee 


)Q. You went before that. What years have you statements for 7—A. 
Ihave from 1848 down to 1864. In 1854 I made two trips and got 500 
barrels ; in 1855, about 500 barrels—I can’t recollect what we took the 
first trip; in 1856, 450 barrels; in 1857, 900 barrels in three trips; in 
1858, 625 barrels; in 1859, 470 barrels; in 1860, 325 barrels; in 1861, 


' 700 barrels. 


Q. You have omitted some years 7?—A. No. , 

Q. Give me quantity for 1862.—A. I gave you 1861 ‘ast. In 1862 
we got 450 barrels; in 1863, 1,140 barrels; in 1864, 1,100 barrels. That 
was my last trip. That was in the bay. 

Q. On the whole you were a successful fisherman during those years, 
and, judging from the evidence we have had, you must have made 
ney: Your catches were large.—A. Yes, I always had a good 
eatch. 

Q. In 1849, by this (referring to memorandum), you were in your 
own shore 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you don’t give the result in this paper ?—A. No; I did not 
put it down. 

Q. What was it?—A. I think between 800 and 900 barrels. That 


' Was a good year. I was high liner. I did well. I went on the shore 


next year, till the 10th of October. I made one trip in 1850, I think it 


| was. There was mackerel on our shore the first of the year and didn’t 
' Seem to be any in the fall. I went down late into the bay. 


Q. Then, after 1864, you retired and went into business ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. Now you say you never fished much in the Bay Chaleurs ?—A. 
Never but twice. 
~Q. You know it of course as a fishing-ground to which the fleet re- 
sorted at times ?—A. Yes, I have beard of fish being caught there. 

Q. Frequently heard ?—A. Yes. I knew it was a fishing-ground, but 
it was never a fishing-ground for me. 

Q. ‘It was not for you personally. Now, you never resorted to the 


_ Seven Islands ?—A. I went as far as there, but there didn’t seem to be 
| anything. i 


~Q. Do you know how far off they fish there?—A. No, I don’t know 


| anything about it. 


~Q. You have also heard about that 7—A. Yes, as a place of resort. 
=>. You know that what mackerel are taken there are taken close in ?— 


| A. No. I don’t know anything of the kind. 
- @. You haven’t heard it?—A. No. 


2940 AWARD OF YHE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Some of the witnesses have said they anchored right in close and 
took them in dories?—A. I don’t know anything of it. 

Q. You fished close on the south shore of the river St. Lawrence ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. That was well inshore ?—A. We got 80 barrels very near inshore. 

Q. That was the only time you fished there?—A. Yes; I never fished 
there before that. 

Q. You have fished about Prince Edward Island six or seven years? 
—A. Yes, off and on. 

Q. What time of the year did you go there fishing generally 7—A. 
Well, after July. We came in about the middle of July, or after that, 
any time till October. 

Q. What port did you make headquarters?—A. I never made any 
port unless we would want water. Then we went to Cascumpeque or 
Malpeque. 

Q. You didn’t go to Souris much ?—A. We never fished that end. 

Q. You would fish of course as you went out and when going in ?— 
A. Well, if we thought there was any fish we would fish anywhere, 
but if we came out of harbor we would never think of heaving to until 
we got 7 miles out. 

Q. I am speaking of the time you had a right to fish there ?—A. Well, 
any time. ¥ 

Q. Have you seen the fleet fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many ?—A. Perhaps 200 sail, scattered about in all directions 
sometimes, and sometimes bunched up near together. They school off 
there some years quite plenty. When they school they are wider out 
than that. 

Q. We have a good deal of evidence on that point.—A. Well, that is 
as far aS my experience goes. 

Q. Do you know whether the habits of the mackerel have changed of 
late years, and whether they are now found nearer than they used to 
‘be ?—A. No, I could not say. 

Q. Have you heard that ?—A. Well, in my experience, I think that 
when the mackerel are scarce it is more inshore than when plenty. I 
think that when they are scarce, like this year, there will be more caught 
inshore than when they are plenty. q 

Q. But have you heard from any of your experienced fishermen that 
the mackerel are taken of late years more inshore than they used to be? 
—A. I haven’t asked; I haven’t had many going in. 

Q. When you fished at Margaree, it was inshore?—A. What I caught 
was inshore there, all but once. 

Q. Then you took them outside?—A. Well, in the year of the gale 
the water was stirred up, and the mackerel didn’t come in until the 
water was still. 

Q. So you went outside ?—A. Yes. 

Q. But except that you took them inside. Now, in the fall of the 
year the fleet generally make a dash at the Cape Breton shore, don’t 
they, to finish up ?—A. I think they do. They look to that place, from 
Cheticamp to Margaree, a good many of them. A great many of them 
will not go there. 

Q. Asa rule, they generally manage to get a good many fish ?—A. + 
Well, I don’t know about that. I have known a good many that didn’t 
get many. 

Q. What is your personal experience of that? You caught one han- 
dred barrels there one time ?—A. I never caught a great many fish 
there. I caught some in 1851; I caught, I think, eighty barrels in that - 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2941 


year. The only two years I recollect catching any of any importance— 
well, I dou’t recollect any big take. 

Q. Of course, one hundred barrels in a day is an enormous take ? 
You say you caught one hundred barrels in one day? Were there any 
other vessels there at that time?—A. I think there were six or eight. 

Q. Did they get equally good catches ?—A. No. 

Q. How was it that you got a full fare?—A. We got all we could. 
We got 103 barrels and had only 50 barrels to put them in. We get all 
we want, for we were alone in the evening. We came over from East 
Point in the night, leaving the fleet at East Point, and in the morning 
at daylight we were in the cove at Margaree. 

Q. I suppose you had been fishing at East Point?—A. We had been 
trying there. 

Q. You were trying at East Point with the fleet and shipped away 
and arrived at Margaree first, Did the fleet follow you the next day 7— 
A. Five or six were there the next day. 

Q. You had not actually depleted the water of fish 7—A. I know there 
were six vessels there; four were from La Have, and two others. 

Q. And they got fish ?—A. They all caught fish. 

Q. The quantities, | suppose, you do not remember ?—A. I don’t know 
how many. They all caught fish; they could not help it. 

Q. The fish were so thick ?—A. They were plentiful. 

Q. In regard to Bird Rock and Block Island mackerel; how many of 
those classes of mackerel are caught?—A. From 300 to 500 barrels .at 
Bird Rock. I think 1,500 barrels \ were taken at Block Island last year. 

Q. What is about the average catch at Block Island ?—A. During the 
last two or three years more have been caught. 

Q. What has been the catch at Block Island this year ?—A. I could 


- not tell; 500 or 600 barrels have come into Gloucester, and some have 


gone to Boston, but how many I cannot say. 

Q. Are they caught with hook-and-line or seine?—A. This year they 
were mostly caught with hook; last year mostly with the seine; they 
are caught both ways. In one trip last year a vessel took 200 barrels ; 
they were taken with the seine. They were all large fish, running 128 
to the barrel. 

Q. You say you sent your vessels to the bay because there was ‘no 
mackerel on your own shores. Were only two of them seiners 7—A. 
The Helen M. Crosby. The Golden Hind was a seiner at home, but her 
seine was left ashore when she came to the bay. 

Q. The Helen M. Crosby was a seiner ?—A. Yes. 

Q. She tried for two weeks in the bay 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. She was not successful with the seine?—A. No; nor with hooks. 
She got only 8 barrels. 

Q. She only staid for two weeks ?—A. That was all. 

Q. Seining is not successful in the bay ?—A. I don’t think it is. 

Q. The water in which the mackerel are taken is too shallow 7—A. 
Too shallow and rough bottom. 

Q. Where did the captain of the Helen M. Crosby try to use the 
seine ?—A. He did not try it at all, because he did not see any fish. 

Q. Do you know where he went ’1—A. I think he told mé he went to 
the island, and from there to the Magdalens, and crossed to Banks 
Bradley and Orphan, and went into Bay Chaleurs, and down to Point 
Miscou, to North Cape, and down the island, and across to Magdalens 
x and from there to Canso and home. I think that was his route. 

Q. He did not go within three miles of Prince Edward Island ?—A. 


re 
x 


4 


i, "3 m . 


2942 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Yes; I suppose he did. I could not say. He did not say anything | 
about that. 

Q. You don’t know ?—A. I do not know whether he went within the © 
three miles. If I was going to the island, the first route I would take 
would be 7 or 8 or 10 miles off the land, and if I did not find fish there, 
I might go in nearer or farther out. 

Q. Would it surprise you to hear that nearly all the boat-fishing is 
done inside of the three miles?—A. It would not surprise me at all, 
because I know that it is inshore this year. 

Q. The fish are mostly in there?—A. They are scattered fish. A 
boat with two or three men picks up a barrel before night comes on, 
But to goin there with a vessel, the crew would be almost starved to 
death, for they would get nothing among 16 men. I know it is so, for 
I have seen so much of it. 

Q. You have not been there for 14 years?—A. I don’t say it is so 
-every time; there might be one or two trips made; but that is the char- 
acter of the inshore-fishing. 

Q. You told the Commissioner you always went from six to seven 
miles off, and you were so particular you did not try coming out of the 
harbor 1A. I think I said he might have hove to and tried, and might 
have caught some mackerel. We did not reckon to heave to there as a 
general thing. IfIsaid so I did not mean it, for we hove to a good many 
times in and out, but [I never recollect catching mackerel there of any 
account inshore, not inside of three miles. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Speaking of halibut-fishing, do you not kuow where the halibut- 
fishermen go to catch halibut ?—A. Yes, I know. I don’t go with them 
to see where they anchor, but I know it the same as I know a good many 
other things. 

Q. Cannot an experienced man tell from the characteristics of the fish- 
where the halibut were caught?—A. The Georges halibut is a plump, 
white fish, while that taken on the Grand Banks in deep water is a 
coarse, heavy fish. We do not get any such fish on the Georges, where 
they are all plump and white. The Seal Island halibut, when we used 
to get them there, is also a plump, white fish, but I have not heard of 
any halibut having been taken there for a series of years. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: 


Q. You have spoken in regard to seeing vessels 15 miles from Port 
Hood. Suppose a man is standing at the edge of the water, how far can 
you see him, in view of the roundness of the earth 7?—A. I cannot tell you. 

By Sir Alexander Galt: 

Q. You have said that a large portion of your business is cod-fishing. 
Have you fished with fresh or salt bait as a rule?7—A. With fresh bait 
altogether. Most of our cod-fishing is on the Georges, and they use 
tresh bait altogether. While banking we have used fresh bait. 

Q. That is on Grand Banks ?—A. Yes, but it does not pay us. The 
last vessel that came home is the last one I want to go after fresh bait. 
She went in four times and brought home 75 quintals; the vessel was 
only a little over a month on the Banks. I will have no more fresh bait , 
at that rate—costing over $400 for the four bait trips. 

By Mr. Davies: 

Q. It has been stated here that, so long as a portion of the fleet fish 
with fresh bait, you are compelled to have it?—A. Yes, if on the same 
ground. The Grand Banks are, however, large, and they can keep - 


— a athe OT 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2943 


away from the fleet and get their fares, because the best fares, or equally 
good ones, have been caught with salt bait. 

Q. Would you be inclined to send vessels to fish with salt bait when 
a large portion of the fleet are using fresh bait ?—A. Yes. I would have 
them go with salt bait, if they would do it, and go away from the rest of 
the fleet on the Grand Banks, and fish by themselves. If they would go 
away from the fleet and fish on their own ground, they would get fish 
with salt bait. 

Q. Has it ever been done in your experience ?—A. Yes; Province- 
town vessels use nothing but clams. I was talking with a man the other 
day who uses salt bait, and he said he gets his fare of from 1,200 to 
1,400 quintals. But though we have used fresh. bait, we have not had 
a successful trip to the Grand Banks. 

Q. You don’t know if the captains would consent 7—A. If the captains 
would go, I would like to send them in that way and let them use salt 
bait. 

Q. Do you know anything about halibut-fishing on the eastern shore 
of Anticosti ?—A. I know that several years ago some vessels caught 
two or three trips there; but it was afterwards given up. I don’t know 
- one vessel that has been there for two or three vessels. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 
- Have you ever been on the Grand Banks fishing yourself ?—A. 


@ You had only a vessel there one year ?—A. We had one this year, 
- one last year. 

Q. The three past years include al] your experience of fishing on the 
Grand Banks ?—A. For the last five years we have had from one to two 
vessels. 

Q. You have had no experience personally of the advantages of either 
- fresh or salt bait ?— A. Not on the Grand Bank; all I get is from talk- 
ing with men who fish with salt bait. 

Q. Do you indorse the opinion that where fresh bait is ‘used it is use- 

less to adopt salt bait ?—A. I think it is; but the vessel with salt bait 
_} ean go to a different part of the ground. 
Q. As far as regards the actual time necessary to go i ito the coast:of 
Newfoundland or Cape Breton and get fresh bait, you cannot judge ?— 
| A. I think Iecan. I have been told—I always asked in regard to it— 
|| that if they could get bait readily after they go in, it would take from 
|| 10 to 12 days; about 10 days, I should judge, from what they told me. 
But they do not always get bait readily ; sometimes they have to go to 
St. Peter’s for ice and down to Conception Bay for bait. 

Q. May they not waste their time occasionally 7—A. [ have no doubt 
they do sometimes. 

INO. 77, 


RocErR W. Wonson, of Gloucester, Mass., fish merchant, called on 
behalf of the Government of the United States, sworo and examined: 


By Mr. Dana: 


Question. Your age, I believe is forty-three, and you were born and 
live at Gloucester ?—Answer. Yes. 

Q. Did you in early life have any experience as a practical fisher- 
man ?—A. Three or four years. 
£ Q. Then you went into the fishing business 7—A. Yes. 
 Q. What year did you go into the business of buying and sailing fish 
and fitting out ?—A. Eighteen hundred and fifty-one. 


2944 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. And have been in it ever since ?—A. Yes. 

Q. How many vessels do you think you have run on an average, in- 
cluding these you owned and those you managed for other people 7?—A, 
-About twelve annually. I have ten at the present time. 

Q. Starting from 1860, how many vessels had you in the bay then 7— 
A. I think I had one. I had from one vessel to five vessels most of the 
time. 

Q. How long have you been engaged i in sending vessels to the bay ?— 

A. Twenty years. 

Q. Do yuu think you have given the bay a fair trial ?—A. I think 
So. 

Q. What is your experience in the bay during those twenty years, as 
far as regards pecuniary results ?—A. It has not been so profitable with | 
us to send vessels there as on cod-fishing. 

Q. Taking the bay mackerel fishery alone, has it been a profitable busi- 
ness ?—A. I think not. 

Q. Have you given up bay fishing?—A. Not wholly. We have one | 
there this season. | 

Q. What is the name of the vessel ?—A. The Russler. 

Q. Have you heard from her?—A. We heard about two weeks ago | | 
that she had got eighty barrels. A gentleman who has come from the | 
bay has since told me she had sixty barrels. 

Q. The vessels you have sent down have been less in number than 
those sent elsewhere ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have had one or two in the bay each season ?—A. We had 
five there one season. We never had more than three, except that 
season. 

Q. How many vessels have you usually sent to the Banks ?—A., I 
should think they would average about six each season ; that is, includ- 
ing those to George’s Bank. 

Q. What has been the result of you rbanking business?—A. It has 
been profitable. That is to say, not a large profit, but it has been more 
profitable than mackereling in the bay. 

Q. Have you employed vessels in fishing at the South for mackerel 
and off Massachusetts and Maine ?—A. Yes. 

Q. What proportion of your vessels had been there mackerel-fishing, 
more or less every year ?—A. Three or four. South a number of sea 
sons, and about five on our coast.. 

Q. Those which go South only remain a short time ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Fishing on our coast, they prosecute it the whole season, if they 
have goad luck 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Until this year, when we know the fishing was poor on our coast, 
except during the first part of the season, what has been your success 
in fishing on the American coast ?—A. We have done very well, indeed ; 
it has been very profitable. 

Q. Have you also been engaged in the herring fishery ?—A. Yes; the 
frozen-herring business. 

Q. When did you go into that ?—A. In the winter of 1868. 

Q. And followed it up to this time 7—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it to buy or catch herring ?—A. To buy, except in one instance, 
when one of our vessels caught a small Cargo. " 

q. What year was that aay The winter of 1873—74. | 

Q. How many vessels do you send on’an average to buy herring — 
A. Five. 

Q. Where mostly ?—A. On what we call the North shore, from East- 
port to Beaver Harbor—Deer Island mostly. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CuMMISSION. 2945 


Q. Not many at Grand Manan ?—A. We have had three cargoes from 
_ there, as near as I can recollect. 

_ Q. Three on an average, or altogether 7?—A. Three altogether. 

Q. In regard to mackerel-fishing on the American coast, how was the 

_ fishing this year 7—A. The vessels did very well South, but when the 

, mackerel came up from the South they could not be found. 

Q. Not in Massachusetts Bay ?—A. No. 

Q. What intelligence did you get in Gloucester from the gulf when 

you could not find mackerel in Massachusett’s Bay 7—A. Reports were 
| in the papers, and posted up, that there were plenty of mackerel down 
there, and that vessels were doing well. 

Q. Were you influenced by that at the time?7—A. Yes. 

__ Q. You know pretty well what bas been the result this year ?—A. 

| Yes. ; 

Q. Do you think it is probable there were signs of mackere! at first ?— 
_A, [think mackerel were seen there at the early part of the season ; 
very likely. Some vessels that went into the bay first got some mack- 
ere. 

Q. Since then?7—A. They have done poorly ; they have found scarcely 
) any. 

_ Q. With regard to the herring business: with the exception you men- 
tioned, do you know any Gloucester vessel which has gone down to 
» New Brunswick and caught herring ?—A. That is the only cargo I know 
scaught by a Gloucester vessel. ; 
| Q. Were you ever yourself on that coast looking after the herring 

business ?—A. Yes; I have been there on an average about two months 
each winter for four winters. 
| Q. At what part of the coast were you ?—A. From Eastport to Beaver 
Harbor mostly ; I have been to Grand Manan two or three times. 

| Q. And to Deer Island ?—A. About Deer Island mostly. 

| Q. That is your personal experience ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Where there did you ever see any Gloucester vessels catching 

\hérring ?—A. I don’t recollect seeing any. 

| Q. Do you know how it is about boats fishing at Eastport and Grand 

_|Manan, and so forth ?—A. I have seen a few Eastport boats fishing there 

-j}amoug New Brunswick boats. 

| Q. Have you ever seen New Brunswick boats on the other side of the 

line?—A. No; I don’t think so. We do not catch many herring on the 

other side; some are caught round Eastport; not very many. 

| Q. They do not mind the boundary-line much there ?—A. I don’t 

\think they do. 

| Q. Would the herring business of Gloucester be considered as one 

of catching or buying herring 7—A. Of buying herring; we don’t pre- 

tend to catch any. 

| Q. In the common speech among Gloucester merchants, dealers, and 

'|fishermen, if anybody spoke of the herring fleet off Gloucester, what 

would be understood by it ?—A. Those that go down to purchase her- 

‘Ting... 

_ Q. Is there anything else to which they could allude ?—A. No. 

| Q. How many American vessels do you suppose you have seen at one 

| \time on the north shore of Grand Manan engaged in the purchase of 

| bait?—A. In the winter of 1875~76, I saw 60 vessels at one time. | 

| Q. Suppose the supply of salt mackerel obtained in the bay, which is 

put into our market, should cease, what do you think would be the 

effect on the American people, and especially on the people of Glou- 
icester?—A. I don’t know that I can give you much of an idea about 


185 F 


! 


| 


%& : e 
‘ 


2946 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


that. I suppose it would affect the market for awhile, but not a great 
while, I should suppose. 

Q. Would it affect it very severely even for a while ?—A. No; I should 
not say it would. 

Q. Suppose the American market should lose the fish taken by Amer. 
ican vessels within three miles of the Canadian coasts, would it havea 
sensible effect on the American market ?—A. I doui’t think it would. 


By Mr. Thomson: 


Q. In regard to the herring fishing ; there is a fleet which goes down 
in the neighborhood of Grand Manan and Eastport, from Gloucester, 
every year, to get bait—herring—is there not ?—-A. To buy bait; yes. — 

Q. Do they go down with appliances to fish 7—A. Not except in the 
one case I have mentioned. 

Q. One of your vessels went down and caught a cargo 7—A. Yes. 

(. Where did she fish ?—A. In St. Andrew’s Bay she caught nearly 
the whole of them. 

Q. In what year was it ?—A. In the winter of 187374. 

Q. Did she get a full cargo?—A. Yes; it was a small vessel. 

Q. What time do you send your vessels down ?—A. About 20th No- 
veinber. 

Q. Do you send them down in the spring, too?—A. Not to buy to 
freeze for the market. 

Q. Do you not send them down to get bait ?—A. Yes. 

Q. They want the bait for fishing there?—A. On Western Banks 
usually. 

Q. Where do they get the bait when they go down?—A. I don’t know 
in the spring. Ihave never been there in the spring and cannot tell 
personally, but somewhere on that coast. 

Q. Do they go down in the spring with fishing appliances ?—A. Not 
that I know of; I never saw any. 

Q. Do you send any of your own vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You send them down entirely without fishing appliances?7—A. We 
dou’t put any on board. 

Q. Are you aware that your captains get bait at either Grand Manan 
or the north shore ?—A. In that vicinity. 

Q. The practice of your men is to go down and give notice to the 
fishermen that they want bait, and the fishermen will get it for them?— 
A. As soon as vessels go in fishermen come on board and see if they 
want bait. 

Q. They then make a bargain?—A. Yes. 

(. And the fishermen go and get bait for them?—A. Yes. 

@. Are the persons who zo on board American citizens or British 
subjects ?—A. I have seen them go on board from Eastport, and we 
suppose they are American citizens there. 

Q. They are American citizens who go over and get bait in British 
waters ?—A. I think that most of the herring are caught in British 
waters. 

Q. I think we have had some evidence that of late years Gloucester 
vessels have gone down and employed Americans to get bait for them, is 
that so?—A. I don’t think they have employed Americans. 1 could not 
say. 

Q. Is it not well known that the Gloucester fleet has gone down iv 
spring and fall, in the fall for frozen herring, and in the spring for the — 
purpose of gettin g bait?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have mentioned that you saw 60 vessels at one time, where 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 2947 


were they lying ?—A. I saw.them from Eastport, down what we call 
thie North Shore, between Eastport and Beaver Harbor. They come to 
Eastport first, usually. 

Q. For the North Shore you start at Letite; you don’t call Eastport 
the North Shore?—A. It is ou that side. It is from Eastport down 
what we call North Shore. 

Q. Do you include the islands in tne North Shore ?—A. Deer Island 
we call North Shore. 

Q. You don’t mean the north shore of the mainland ?—A. Not wholly. 

Q. Would you include Grand Manan in your idea of the North Shore? 
—A. No. 

Q. Or Campobello?—A. No. 

Q. Only Deer Island 7—A. Yes. 

(). Because that lies nearer Letite.?—A. Yes. 

Q. And from that all along the main shore you call the North Shore? 
—A. Yes. 

Q. That is where your vessels chiefly got their bait and frozen herring? 
—A. That is as to frozen herring. I don’t know where the fishermen 
get them in the spring. 

Q. There is a large fishing population at Eastport and along the shore 
westward to Lubeck, and toward Mount Desert, is there not 7—A. I 
don’t think there are a great many fishing people from Eastport to 


| Mount Desert. 


Q. Or from Eastport to Lubeck 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. A great many persons are engaged in fishing around Eastport ? 1 
A. Not in herring fishery—in Bank fishery. 

Q. I mean in bait fishing 7—A. There are very few at Eastport com- 
pared with what there are across the line. 

Q. De Eastport boats or fishermen go over into British waters and 
fish 7—A. Yes, I think they do, what there are of them. 

Q. All American fishermen go over and fish on the shores of the 
island ?—A. Yes, I think they do. 

Q. Either at Deer Island, Campobello, West Isles, or Grand Manan. 
You yourself have no personal knowledge of the north shore or main 


and, [ suppose ?—A. From Beaver Harbor to Letite.. I have been in 


the harbors all along there. 

Q. There is a great deal of fishing round that coast ?—A. Yes. 

Q. A great many American vessels come in there every year ?—A. I 
could not say a great many; I have seen a few. 

Q. Dou’t they come in and get bait ?—A. A lot of American vessels 
come after bait. 

Q. A large number come in and fish themselves ?—A. I have only 
seen a few from Eastport. 

Q. A large number come in and get bait 7—A. Yes, buy it. 

_Q. They give notice to the fishermen that they want bait, and the 
fishermen go and get it for them ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You said the fisheries of the gulf are very bad. State the number 
of years your vessels have been in the gulf fishing ?—A. I could not tell 
you before 1870. We have had one in every year, since 1870, till last 
year, when we had not any. 

Q. Before 1870 had you any in the gulf?—A. Yes, but I could not 
State the years. 

~Q. Did none of those vessels previous to 1870 make money and get 


good cargoes ?—A. I think once in a while they did fairly. 


=. Do 3 you know whether they fished inshore or off shore ?—A. I could 
Say. 


2948 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. They may have taken the whole catch, for anything you know, 
within the 3-mile limit ?—A. I never heard them say that they had taken 
them inshore. They may have done so. 

Q. Did you ever hear from them that they did not take them in- 
shore 7—A. No. 

Q. Then, for anything you know, they might all have been taken 
within the 3 mile limit or all outside ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Some of the years were profitable 7—A. I think two or three years 
we might have done very fairly, as far as I can reeollect. 

Q. Since 1870 how many vessels have you had in the bay ?—A. From _ 
one to three, except last year, when we had not any. | 

Q. Had you made money in the gulf fishing up to 1870 ?—A. No; I | 
do not think we had. 

Q. Had you lost money ?—A. I could not say for certain. I don’t | 
think we made any; but [could not say for certain we lost any. I don’t | 
think it was profitable. 

Q. You had not lost any money up to that time ?—A. I could not say | 
we had. 

Q. At all events, notwithstanding the character of that fishing— | 
good or bad—you sent to the gulf after 1870 every year until last year?— | 

LER 

Q. Have you lost money since 1870 ?—A. Yes; we have. 

Q. A large sum ?—A, No; not very large. 

Q. How much have you lost 7—A. I could not say. I have not the 
figures, and have not examined the books. 

Q. Cannot you tell bow much you have lost?—A. I cannot tell | 
you. 

Q. You sold supplies to the vessels 7?—A. Yes. | / 
Q. You charged a profit on all the supplies you put on board your | 


vessels 7?—A. Yes. 

Q. Putting that business and the fishing business together, do you 
say you bave lost money since 1870 ?—A. We ‘have on bay fishing. 

Q. Taking the profit on outfit on the fish after they are repacked and 
in other ways, have you lost money?—A. We have made a shrink- 
age. 

AS. You sell the fish, or take them at a price ?—A. We sell them for | 
the benefit of the voyage. 

@. You allow the men so much for their share?—A. We don’t buy | | 
mackerel ourselves. We sell them to the buyers and speculators there. 

Q. You dow’t speculate at all yourselves ?—A. Not in mackerel. 

Q. Do you in other fish ?—A. Yes; in codfish. | 

Q. What do you do with the vessels which are in the gulf in summer | 
and early fall?—A. They go cod-fishing in spring, or to the South for 
mackerel; cod-fishing, chiefly. 

Q. Then you want the bay fishery fur the purpose of filling up their 
time ?—A. We send tliem there to catch some fish if they can. 

Q. Why do you keep them there every year?—A. We don’t keep | 
many there ; we used to have five; we have only one there now. 

Q. Why do you keep one in the bay ?—A. In the hope it will do 
better. 

Q. Are you serious in saying you don’t think the gulf inshore fishery 
is worth anything 7?—A, Yes. 

Q. Suppose the inshore fishery was taken away from you, and the 
rest of the gulf fishing was left to you, and the fishing at the Magdalen 
Islands, would it do you any injury ?—A. I think not. i 

(). Practica ly it is of no value to you?—A. I think not. th 


 Wt?:}??., [22 == 


eed 


AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2949 


Q. Is that the opinion of Gloucester fishermen generally ?—A. I could 
not say. 

Q. Surely you must know the general opinion of Gloucester people, 
when you are a Gloucester man ?—A. It is a matter Ido not hear dis- 
cussed much, and I could not say what the general opinion is. 

Q. Do yo: think the opinion you bold is one in which no one else 
agrees with you ?—A. [ have heard my partner mention it. 

Q. Do you say you know so little about the public opinion of Glouces- 
ter that you cannot tell whether that is the opinion of the people there 7?— 
A. Well, I think it is; I have not heard much about it. 

Q. Some witnesses so have stated that Boston is the great center of 
the fish trade in the United States; is that your opinion ?—A. I think 
it is, in certain kinds, 

Q. Do you know what is the general opinion in Boston in regard to 
the right of fishing inshore in the gulf?—A. I do not. 

Q. Does not the board of trade there represent the opinion of Boston 
in matters of trade ?—A. I suppose it does; I don’t know what its 
opinion is. 

-Q. I want to call your attention to a report of the government of the 
_ boston board of trade presented to the board on 17th January, 1835. 
At page 1 it says: 


The government of the Boston Board of Trade have the pleasure of placing before 
the members an account of proceedings upon the principal suvjects which have engaged 
their attention since the organization of the board. 

At the regular meeting in November, a report was made embracing many of these 
| subjects, and the short time which has elapsed since has furnished them with but little 
' new to communicate at the present time. 

They deem it proper, however, on the occasion of the annual meeting, to review what 
has been done, and to give you some idea of the plan which it is proposed to pursue, 
in order to accomplish the end for which our board was incorporated. 


At page 10, there is the following passage: 


The people of Nova Scotia are differently employed, according to the districts in 
which they reside. In the agricultural portions of the province they are all farmers ; 
on the seaboard they are ship-builders, fishermen, and sailors, the latter engaged in 
_ coasting and the carrying trade of the world, in vessels of their own build, wherever 
they can find employment. , 
In New Brunswick the population is about equally divided between farming, lum- 
bering, and ship-building, with a small portion engaged in the fisheries. 
It will thus be seen that the pursuits of the people are various, and that while in 
some particulars their interests are identical, in others they are antagonistic. 
he inward and outward trade of the five British North American colonies amounts 
to about eighty millions of dollars annually. The ships inward and ontwaid, to and 
from foreign ports, exclusive of local trade, amounted in 1853 to near four millions of 
tons, and the aggregate of tonnage owned and registered in these co’ouies now amounts 
to five hundred thonsand tons. They built and sold in England in 1253, one hundred 
and fifty thousand tonsof new shipping. These ships are employed on every ocean 
and the character of colonial ships is rapidly rising; they nearly equal the first-class 
American and British ships, and the improvement in intellectual and moral character 


_. of colonial ship-masters and seamen is tully keeping pace with their improvements in 


naval architecture. 

The British North American colonies, though separated from us by several thousand 
miles of frontier, are geographically united to us, and the free exchange of merchan- 
dise in countries so situated is almost inevitable. Their present population is rapidly 
increasing and they are increasing in material wealth. 

; eof the mutual advantages whch the present treaty presents in our own par- 
tienlar rela'ions with these provinces may be at once seen. 

Tt opens another source from whi-h to draw our breadstuffs, cattle, lumber, and 
fuel, and our thickly-setiled manufacturing districts offer to the provinces the best 
market in our country for the consumption of their products; while, on the other 
} band, all our manufactures being admitted to the provinces on as favorable terms as 
_) these of Great Britain, or of any other country, we have a wide field open wherein to 
) dis of onr surplus products, and offer them the important advantage of supplying 
themselves from first-hands. The value of our exports to the provinces is already one 


2950 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and a half millions a year, made up of stoves, iron, and wooden-wares, and all sorts of 
Yankee inventions; and this amount, under free intercourse, will greatly increase. 

The foreign imports into this district have increased in the last fifteen years from 
fourteen to forty-six millions of dollars, and our market now offers, or should offer, if 
we are true to ourselves, every inducement for the inhabitants of the provinces to sup- 
ply themselves here with foreign dry-goods, teas, groceries, or whatever else they may 
need. 

In connection with this, your directors cannot refrain from mentioning, incidentally, 
the great increase which is seen in the amount of goods sent in transit by way of Bos- 
ton to the Canadas within the past few years—from twenty-five thousand dollars in 
1849, to over five millions in 1854; nor from referring to the great facilities afforded by 
our harbor, by the improvements at East Boston, and the line of railway by which all 
our roads from Boston may be united—as eminently calculated to augment our com- 
mercial relations, for export as well as import, with the British North American proy- 
inces, and with our whole Western countries, and as of almost incalculable advantage 
to our railroads, if they only show themselves capable of doing the business. 

But, in connection with the Reciprocity Treaty, it is to the importance of the fish- 
eries that your directors wish at this time particularly to call your attention; seventy 
per cent. of the tonnage employed in the whale, cod, and mackerel fisheries in the 
United States belongs to Massachusetts, and Boston is the business center. 

By colunial construction of the Convention between the United States and Great 
Britain, of 1818, we were excluded from not less than four thousand miles of fishing- 
ground. The valuable mackerel fishery is situated between the shore and a line drawn 
from the St. Croix River, southeast to Seal Island, and extending along the Atlantic 
coast of Nova Scotia, about three miles from the coast, around Cape Breton, outside | 
Prince Edward Island, across the entrance to the Bay of Chaleur; thence outside the 
Island of Anticosti to Mt. Joly, on the Labrador coast, where the right of shore-fishing 
commences. The coasts within these limits, following their several indentations, are 
not less than four thousand miles in extent, all excellent fishing-grounds. Before the’ 
mackerel fishery began to be closely watched and protected, our vessels actually” 
swarmed on the fishing-ground within the spaces ivclosed by the line mentioned. 

Each of these vessels made two or three full fares in the season, and some thousands © 
of valuable cargoes were landed every year in the United States, adding largely to. 
our wealth and prosperity. 

A sad contrast has since existed. From Gloucester only one hundred and fifty-six | 
vessels were sent to the Bay of Saint Lawrence in 1853. Of these, not more than one 
in ten made the second trip, and even they did not get full fares the first trip, but went | 
a second time in the hope of doing better. The priu¢ipal persons engaged in the bnéi- 
ness in Gloucester, estimated that the loss in 1853 amounted to an average of one thou- | 
sand dollars on each vessel, without counting that incurred from detention, delays, | 
and damages from being driven out of the harbor and from waste of time by crews. | 
It was agreed by all parties that if their vessels could have had free access to the fish- | 
ing-grounds, as formerly, the difference to that district alone would have been at least | 
four hundred thousand dollars. 

In 1853, there were forty-six vessels belonging to Beverly; thirteen of them went to. 
the bay in 1852, but owing to the restrictions their voyages were wholiy unsuccessful, 
and none of them went in 1853. : 

At Salem, only two mackerel licenses were granted in 1853, and at Marblehead only 


ix. 

At Newburyport there are ninety fishing-vessels; seventy of these went to the bay 
for mackerel jn 1853, but almost all of them, it is said, made ruinous voyages. At. 
Boston, only a dozen licenses were granted for this fishery in 1453, and very few of the | 
one hundred vessels belonging to the towns of Dennis and Harwich, on Cape Cod, 
two-thirds of which are engaged in the mackerel fishery, went to the bay for mackerel 
last year, because of the ill success attending the operations of the year previous. One 
of their vessels of one hundred tons burthen, manned by sixteen men, was six weeks | 
in the bay in 1853, and returned with only one barrel of mackerel. 

Unless some change had taken place beneficial to the interests of our hardy fisher- | 
men, the Northern fisheries would have been wholly ruined, and in all probability have 
entirely ceased, except on a very limited scale on our own shores. The one hun 
and fifty thousand tons of shipping employed in those fisheries would have been obliged 
to seek employment elsewhere, and the product of the fisheries themselves, amounting 
to three or four million dollars annually, would have been lost to us. The present | 
treaty opens to us again all these valuable fisheries, and our thanks are due to the dis- 
tinguished statesmen who have labored in bringing it to a successful termination; and | 
your directors are most bappy to make mention of the services of Israel D. Andrews, 
esq., @ gentleman whom we hope to bave the pleasure of meeting to-day, who bas 
worked most assiduously for the last four years in collecting and furnishing ing 
valuable reports almost all the information possetsed on the subject, and without whose | 
exertions, it is hardly too much to say, the treaty would never have been made. ; 

| 
s| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2951 


Q. That is the opinion of the Boston Board of Trade. Do you dis- 
sent from that opinion 7—A. I don’t think they know so much about the 
| fishing business as Gloucester people do. 

@. In 1853, were Gloucester people doing a flourishing business in the 
gulf, or were they losing money ?—A. I could not say. 

QQ, The Boston board of directors state that ‘it was agreed by all 

parties that if their vessels (Gloucester vessels) could have had free 
_aecess to the fishing-grounds as formerly, the difference to that district 
, alone would have been at least $600,000.” Do you dissent from that 

opinion?—A. Yes. ; 

_ . I now call your attention to a speech delivered by Mr. Erastus 

' Brooks, delivered at New York on May 28, 1874. He says: 


Our public documents show, first, in 1862, we had over 203,000 tons of shipping in 
| the fisheries, off what are now the Canadian coasts, with 28,000 seamen; the returns 
| considerably exceeded $14,000,000. 


Do you agree or dissent from that opinion?—A. I don’t know any- 
thing about it. 

Q. He says: 

2d. Within three years from the abrogation of the treaty depriving our fishermen of 


| 

| the shore privileges under the treaty, our tonnage in the trade fell to 62,000 tons—a 
loss of 70 per cent. 
| 


| Do you dissent from that statement?—A. Yes. I don’t think it fell 
off that much; it fell off considerably; [ could not say how much. 
_ Q. He further says: 


3d. The reconcession of these shore privileges, under the Washington Treaty, has 
) already doubled the tonnage of our tishing-fleet from what it was in 1869. 


| Do you dissent from that ?—A. I should not think it was a true state- 
‘ment, though I could not say. 


| Q. And you know that, after the Treaty of Washington, in 1871, your 
| tonnage began to increase, and has increased ever since?—A. I don’t 
| ink it has. 

 Q. Then you think this statement is not correct?—A. It has fallen off. 
|| Q, Since 1871 ?—A. I think so. 

| Q. Then Mr. Brooks is wrong ?—A. It has been falling off all the 
_ time. F 


| 


| 


| 
_ Q. Since 1861 it has not increased ?—A. I don’t think it has. 


[New York Evening Express, May 28th, 1874.] 
Produce Exchange. 


' ANOTHER CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT—SPEECH OF ERASTUS BROOKS—RECIPROCAL 
COMMERCIAL TREATY. 


_ A meeting of the members of the exchange was held this afternoon, to consider tie 
| | subject of restoring reciprocal commercial relations between the: United’ States, Cun- 
|, ada, and Newfoundland. 
| Mr. B. W. Floyd, vice-president, presided. The secretary read the following: 
‘The board of managers of the New York Produce Exchange having learned that 
> are now pending between the United States and the Dominion of Canada 
nd Newfoundland for the renewal of reciprocal commercial relations between the 
| tWo countries, it is therefore 
' Resolved, That this exchange earnestly desires to impress upon the Government of 
the United States, and upon the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, 


%~ 
_— 


2952 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the great importance of the consummation of such a treaty at the earliest day prae- 
ticable. ; ; 

Resolved, That a committee of 7 members of the produce exchange be appointed by 
the president, who shall take snch action a3 in their judgment may be deemed neces- 
sary to carry out the objects of this meeting. . 

The president then introduced the Hon. Erastus Brooks, who spoke in substance as 
follows: 

Mr. Brooks said: The more freedom there is in trade the better for the country, for 
its producers, for its consumers, for the merchant, and for the carrier; and, therefore, 
the just conclusion that the fewer restrictions imposed upon trade and commerce 
Federal or State laws, the better for the people at large. However much either of 
these propositions may be disputed, the truth of history will sustain this position. So 
rare are the exceptions or qualifying circumstances that the main facts will always 
stand good. 

The subject before us is the proposed restoration of the Reciprocity Treaty with so 
much freedom of trade as is practical for two governments to agree upon. Between 
the States the fundamental law of the land wisely compels this freedom. Free and 
equal States, with equal rights for all citizens and all kinds of trade, whatever the 
practice, is the natural and legal right of all; and but for unjust combinations of 
selfish men for selfish purposes there would never be any departure from this sound 
maxim. 

It is now proposed that, as between the United States and Canada, there shall be— 

1. The waiver of muney compensation by the United States for fisheries under the 
Washington Treaty. 

2. That the Canadian canals, from Lake Erie to Montreal, be enlarged within 3 
years at the cost of Canada, so as to admit the passage of vessels 260 feet in length 
and 45 in breadth, and with a depth equal to the capacity of the lake harbors. 

3. That during the treaty all the Canadian canals, and the Erie, Whitehall, and 
Sault St. Marie, and Lake St. Clair canals shall be open to vessels and boats of both 
countries and on the same terms. 

4. That the free navigation of Lake Michigan be put on the same terms as the free 
navigation of the St. Lawrence River. 

5. That the navigation of the St. Clair flats be maintained at the expense of both 
countries in proportion to their commerce thereon. 

6. That the productions of the farm, forest, mines, and water, and also animals, 
meats, and products of the dairy, be admitted into both countries duty free, as was 
provided in the Treaty of 1854. 

7. This list may possibly include agricultural implements, manufactures of iron and 
steel ard of wood, minerals, oils, salt, and a few other articles. 

This is opposed because, as alleged, it will interfere with protection and admit the 
Canadians to none of the benefits of American citizenship. $ 

The answer to this assertion is that all the facts are against the objection. From 
1821 to 1833 the average annual traffic between the United States and Canada was 
$3,500,000, and from 1832 (sic) to 1845, $6,500,000, and from 1846 to 1853, $14,230,000. 
This traffic rose in twelve years of reciprocity to a purchase by the colonies of United 
States commodities to the gold value of $359,667,000, and the purchase by us from the 
colonies of products to the value of $197,000,000. There was a balance in gold in favor 
of the United States during ten years of nearly $96,000,000, and in these twelve years 
the United States exports to Canada equaled in value all ou r exports to China, Bra- 
zil, Italy, Hayti, Russia, Venezuela, Austria, the Argentine Republic, Denmark, Tur- 
key, Portugal, the Sandwich Islands, Central America, and Japan; while our trade 
witb these governments showed that we imported from these countries over $192,000,000 
in excess of our exports other than gold. While thus the balance of trade with Can-. 
ada was nearly $96,000,000 in our favor, of our exports to Canada $151,000,000 were in 
manufactures. 


: 


4 


THE FISHERY RIGHTS, LUMBER, ETC, 


Our public documents show— 

1. In 1862 we had over 203,000 tons of shipping in the fisheries off what are now the 
Canadian coasts, with 28,000 seamen, and the returns considerably exceeded $14,000,000. 

2. Within three years from the abrogation of the treaty, depriving our fishermen of 
the shore privileges under the treaty, our tonnage in the trade fell to 62,000 tons, a loss 
of 70 per cent. 4 

3. The reconcession of these shore-privileges, under the Washington treaty, has 
already doubled the tonnage of our fishing-fleet from what it was in 1869. 

4. As to the benefits of reciprocity, our official returns show that from 1520 to 1854, 
in which latter year the treaty went into operation, the provinces bought from us mer- 
chandise to the value of $167,216,709, while we bought from them but $67,794,426 
cash balance in our favor of nearly $100,000,000. + 

5. In the years from 1854 to 1863, in which the treaty was in operation, the provinces .— 


« y 4 
i — ow = * 


ao 


Ss. - rs 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2953 


\ 


parchased from ng $255,282,698, while we purchased from them $193,269,153; a balance 

in our favor of $62,000,000. From July 1, 1863, to June 30, 1~66, our returus show that 

we imported from them a value of 3132,000,000, while their returns show only $81,000,000 

ted to us; a discrepancy of $50,000,000, which the Canadians allege must have 

inated irom our war prices and inflated currency. 

. If the United States returns are correct, the provinces in these three years had 

a balance of trade in their favor; if the province returns are correct, the balance 
was in our favor. ; 

7th. Canada asserts, as to a large portion of the articles received from her free of 

duty woder the treaty, that our importations have been annually‘iucreasing since the 

at greatly enlanced prices. 

th. While rhe treaty was ia operation we purchased over $29,000,000 of lumber, or 

an average of $3 000,000 per avnum, but in the seven years that have elapsed since the 

repeal, we have purchased nearly $59,000,000 of lumber, or an annual average of over 


9th. The cash pice of clear lumber in Toronto is $26 per 1.000 feet, or double what 
if was ten years ago, and its price now in Portland, Me., is double the present price in 
Toronto. 

Our great international interests relate chiefly to the several subjects involved in 
the above-named propositions. It is a good rule to judge of the future by the past, 
and, jadging from the past, here are the advantages derived from the treaty when it 
existed. The Canadians quote against us our own official records to prove that in the 
old treaty we hid all the advantage. 

The British North American Provinces purchased from us merchandise to the value 
of $69,286,709, and the United States purchased from the provinces $67,749,426, leaving 
a balance in favor of the United States of $99,428,232. In the first ten years of the 
| treaty we had a balance in favor of the United States of $62,013,545. 

Since the abrogation of the old treaty, eight years since, articles that were free now 

| pay an average duty of 25 per cent., while the more important articies formerly free 
were animals, breadstuffs, grain and flour, lumber, timber, coal, butter and cheese, 
wool, fish, and fish products. All these are necessities, and contriLute to the food and 
clothing and shelter of the people. 

But Canada and the United States are not the only parties in interest. Take the 
Province of Newfoundland. Our average imports from there amounted under the treaty 
to $300,000 annually, while the exports of pork and flour footed up $2,250,000 per 
annum. So in 1862, under the treaty, New Brunswick sold goods to the United States 

of the value of $890,000, and purchased $2,000,000, paying the difference in cash, while 
| Nova Scotia, in the same year, sold $2,000,000 of codfish, &c., to the United States, and 
parchased goods to the amount of $3,800,000. 


* 


EFFECT OF THE REPEAL ON NEW YORK. 


The repeal of the treaty bias injured the commerce of this port to a great extent. 
| One of the firms engaged in the tobacco trade says that his housa sold $2,000,000 
, annually to Canadian buyers during the treaty, but that he has done comparatively 
nothing since 1866. 

The butter and cheese trade of the country, representing $500,000,000 of its produc- 
' tion, has had the same experience. This is also the experience of nearly all our basi- 
ness men, and it is this class who urge the restoration of the treaty. Of course, such 

a treaty must be reciprocal in fact as in name. It is said that under the treaty which 
expired “ Canadians were ready to interchange free commodities, but on goods sub- 
| ject to duty they placed such exorbitant tariffs as to prohibit purchases in the United 
tes. The result was loud and constant complaints and demands for the ter nination 
of the treaty. The benefits were mainly with the Canad ans, the burdens with us.” 

The facts here given do not bear out this record, but if they were true the American 
Government would, of course, modify the treaty. The fact is, that, while the old treaty 
existed, over 52 per cent. of the entire trade of the provinces was with this country, 
- and since its abrogation onr portion of the trade amounts to less than 35 per cent. 

The conclusions from all these facts, whatever the contrary opinion, is that the re- 
_ of the Reci,recal Treaty bas lost the country many millions of dollars, and that 

restoration in spirit, not necessarily in form, is most desirable to all general inter- 
ests and detrimental to none of them. In the Dominion of Canada there are now over 


4,000,000 of people with a debt considerably less than the debt of the city of New 


. The commerce of the Dominion last year was 60 steamships, 446 sailing ves- 
sels, and 152,226 tons of shipping; and 11,089 sea-going ships, with a tonnage of 
3,032,476 tons, arrived at Canadian ocean ports, and 18,960 lake and river vessels, with 
tonnage of 2,994,484 tons, at Canadian inland ports, and this makes the Dominion, 
ler England and the United States, next to France as the shipping country of the 


e imports into Canada last year were valued at $138,961,231, of which $60,000,000 


i ee 


. 


2954 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


were without duty. Shall we repel a people and a trade so inviting as this? In your 
own and the general interests of the city I hope not. It was said in the days of the 
Roman Empire that all roads lead to Rome. In the commerce, capital. credit, trade, 
and the general thrift of the new world it may be said that all roads lead to New 
York. We have but to do our whole duty, fairly aided by the general government, not 
only to secure property for ourselves, but to contribute largely to the prosperity of 
others. 

Mr. Archibald Baxter spoke of the importance of the treaty, and of the advantages 
of the old one, the abrogation of which did not remove any disadvantages under 
which the United States then labored. He insisted that nature intended the two 
countries to reciprocate commerce; we had only to look to their contiguity and the 
facilities provided to promote it. The speaker urged an emphatic demonstration by 
the meeting in favor of maintaining the treaty. : 

The resolutions were then unanimously adopted. 


Q. I will now read you the following from the Cape Aun Advertiser 
of October 18, 1877: 


THE TONNAGE OF GLOUCESTER.—The statement of the tonnage of the district of 
Gloucester for the quarter ending September 30, 1877, shows a total of 523 vessels, 
aggregating 34,7434 tons, an increase during the quarter of 6 vessels and 1,375.54 tons ; 
4 are under permanent registers, 1,189.34 tons; 1 temporary register, 533.67 tons ; 462 
permanent enrollment, 29,873.08 tons; 6 temporary enrollments, 2,525.58 tons; 66 
(Jess than 20 tons) under licenses, 698.83 tons; 5 vessels, 1,653.01 tons, are employed in 
foreign trade; 91 vessels, 9,013.22 tons, in the coasting trade; 3 in yachting, 182.47 
tons; and 417 vessels, 22,994.80 tons, in the fisheries. During the quarter, 2 vessels, 
158.83 tons, have been built in the district; and 2, 109.97 tons, have been lost at sea.— 
Cape Ann Advertiser. 


Is that true, or do you dissent from the statement 7?—A. I should 
think it is true. 

Q. That does not show the decrease you have just spoken of 7—A..I 
understood that you were speaking of fishing in Canadian waters when 
you mentioned the decrease. 

Q. You do not then dissent from the statement that after the treaty 
was passed the tonnage increased to that extent, no matter where they 
went fishing ?—A. The tonnage has been increasing in Gloucester ever 
since I can remember. 

Q. The tonnage of the fishing fleet fell from 1866—the time of the 
Reciprocity Treaty—to 1869 to 62,000 tons?—A. I thought you asked 
me about the tonnage in Canadian waters. 4 

Q. Did it not fall after the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. 
There was not so much tonnage in Canadian waters. 

Q. Did the tonnage fall 7—A. I don’t think it did in Gloucester. 

Q. Did the whole American tonnage fall after the abrogation of the 
Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. I cannot say, except as regards Gloucester. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Do you know anything about the Boston Board of Trade 22 years 
ago ?—A. No. 

Q. Had it anything to do with the fishing business ?—A. Not that I- 
know of. 

Q. Did you ever know any member of the Board of Trade who had 
anything to do with the fishing business ?—A. No. 

Q. Was Boston or Gloucester the representative of the fishing bust- 
ness, or even now, as regards the ownership and employment of ves- 
sels ?—A. Gloucester. 

Q. Was there any ownership or employment of vessels with which the 
Boston Board of Trade had anything to do?—A. Not that I know of. 

Q. Has not the whole business of cod and mackerel fishing changed 
since that time? At that time, 22 years ago, was seiniug or trawling 
practiced by the vessels ?—A, Seining was not, and I do not think traw 
ing was to any extent. 


; 
4 
=. 
. ‘ : 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2955 


Q. You had an extract read to you from the report of the Boston 

Board of Trade. Had it rather a swelling auctioneering style with it? 
- How did it strike you?—A. It may be true, but it does not appear to 
be so. 

Q. It speaks of the colonial construction of the Treaty of 1868. That 
is a construction which keeps us out of the great bays?—A. Yes. 

_  Q. Do you know how the colonies constructed the Treaty of 1818 ?— 
_ A. I don’t recollect exactly. 

Q. If that report attributes the falling off in the gulf fishery, which 
you say has been pretty steady, to the inability to fish within three miles 
of the shore, is that a correct statement 7—A. I could not say about 

. that. 

Q. Has the falling off of the gulf fishery from Gloucester been irre- 
spective of the dates and times at which treaties have gone into opera- 
tion, and has it been on the whole steady and uniform ?—A. I think it 
has been steady. 

Q. If anybody did in 1855 form the opinion that our fishermen would 
_ prosper vastly if they could fish within the three miles and would go to 
ruin if they could not, has it or has it not turned out to be an entirely 
_ erroneous opinion ?—A. I think so. 

' Q. Is it true of the fishing tonnage, that during the three years after 
the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, the tonnage fell from 203,000 
to 62,000?7—A. I think not. 

Q. Is that anything within reason ?—A. I think not. 

Q. The fishing clauses of the Washington Treaty had not bee in 
_ operation in Prince Edward Island more than two years, and in other 
parts not more than one year, when the speech was made, Mr. Brooks 

says: 
| 8d. The reconcession of the shore privileges under the Washington Treaty has already 
| doubled the tonnage of our fishing fleet from what it was in 1869. 


Have you any idea of such a thing having happened?—A. No. 
Q. Has the amount of tonnage employed in the bay fishery increased 
or diminished within the last six years ?—A. It has diminished. 

Q. And there has been no marked change in its favor since the Wash- 
ington Treaty went into operation. The fishing in the gulf has not 
increased, but has diminished, without reference to the Washington 
' Treaty 7—A. The fishing in the gulf—yes. 

Q. You have not seen this speech, made by Mr. Erastus Brooks, be- 

' fore ?—A. No. 
Q. The extract from the Cape Ann Advertiser, which has been read, 
| Shows an increase of six vessels during the quarter. Four of these are 

- under permanent registers. Those, I suppose, are not bay fishing ves- 

_ sels?—A. No; I suppose not. 

Q. They would be trading vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Has the tonnage of Gloucester engaged in trading with the West 
Indies and Europe and other parts increased ?—A. Yes, and the coast- 
ing trade, 

Q. Taking all the fishing—the home fishing for cod, haddock, and 
halibut, on all the banks, and fishing in the gulf—has it, ou the whole, 
increased or diminished 7—A, I think it has increased somewhat. 

Q. But the increase has been in what branch of the business ?—A. 
Beaty i in the coasting trade. Perhaps our fishing has increased some- 
what. 

: _ Q. Has the cod-fishing increased or decreased ?—A. It has increased. 


Q. Aud the bay fishing has decreased ?—A. Yes. 


2956 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Thomson: 

Q. You stated, in answer to Mr. Dana, that you did not know any 
person belonging to the Boston Board of Trade i in the fishing business, — 
Do you know the members of the Board of Trade who framed that 
report in 1855?—A. No. 

Q. Then you did not mean the Commissioners to understand it was 
composed by gentlemen who had nothing to do with the trade. Do you 
know a single man who composed the report ?—A. No. 

Q. Then you cannot undertake to say that there was no man who was 
not engaged in the fishing business ?—A. I know there is no Gloucester 
man. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Is the falling off in the fishing, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 
attributed by you to its being less profitable of late years 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And more profitable on your own coast ?7—A. Yes. 

@. You say that this year the mackerel were reported to be more — 
abundant in the bay and that induced you to send more of your vessels 
to the bay 7?—A. That induced us to send what we did. We did not 
intend to send any—we sent one. 

Q. Would it be your opinion that, if the mackerel should be as plen- 
tiful in the bay as ‘they were in former years, the fleet would again go 
as they did betore?—A. If they were scarce on our coast, they ‘might. 

Q. Under similar circumstances, they would go back. Do you mean 
they did not go to the bay because they found fishing on the American 
coast rather more profitable than in the bay 7—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Dana: 
Q. And cod-fishing?—A. Yes. 


No. 78. 


WEDNESDAY, October 24, 1877. 
The Conference met. 
Fitz J. BABSON, collector of customs of Gloucester, Mass., called on 
behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Trescot: 


Question. Are you collector of the port of Gloucester Ro enaek Tam. 

Q. How long have you been so ?—A. Eight years. 

Q. Is it your duty as collector to issue papers to all vessels going out 
of Gloucester ?—A. It is. 

Q. What is the character of the papers you issue ?—A. Three kinds— 
domestic and foreign—a register fishing license and coasting license. 

Q. Does the register or fishing license inelude the privilege to touch | 
and trade, or is it a special issue ?—A. The privilege to touch and trade 
is simply what is connected with the fishing license by application made 
upon the part of the captain or owner. 

Q. Explain what it is—A. A vessel taking a fishing license and being 
desirous to touch and trade as part of the trip or the whole of it, applies 
at the office for a permit to touch and trade, which is a paper that is in 
connection with the fishing license, and gives the same power for that * 
one voyage as a register. 

Q. Then, as I understand it, a fishing-vessel sailing from Gloucester 
with the intention to buy bait at Newfoundland, or to buy frozen herring, 
would take out, besides a fishing license, a permit to touch and trade ?— 
A, It would. 


rrr 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2957 


Q. What is the difference either in cost or in advantage between 
taking out a permit to touch and trade, and taking a register ?—A. A 

rmit to touch and trade would simply cost 25 cents. In case a vessel 
under a fishing license wishes to take a register it has to give up the 
license and take out a register, which would cost $2.25. The other 
expenditures to which the vessel would be liable under a register would 
be a tonnage tax of thirty cents per ton, and also a hospital tax of forty 
cents per month on each individual member of the crew for the time she 
had the register. 

Q. Under a register the vessel would have to enter aud clear at every 

t, and that is a certain additional cost?—A. Yes, 

Q. Take a Gloucester vessel that is going fishing and she thinks she 
may want to purchase bait, or, at all events, to go and fish and purchase 
frozen herring; if she takes a register, when she returned with the cargo 
she would have to enter and clear, and if she went out fishing she would 
have to enter and clear every voyage 7—A. Yes. 

(). Whereas, if it takes out a fishing license with a permit to touch 
and trade she could go and come without any further entries 7—A. Cer- 
tainly. 

Q. Then those vessels pay none of the duties you refer to ?—A. With 
a fishing license, with permit to touch and trade, no duties are exacted. 

Q. With regard to the hospital tax. That is paid ou every entry 7—A. 
On every entry of a vessel under a register. No hospital tax is exacted 
from our fishermen. 

Q. A vessel under a register would have to pay the hospital tax at 
the port of entry without she had paid it at the port from which she 
cleared ?—A. At every new entry. 

Q. Then a vessel going out of Gloucester, which takes a permit to 
touch and trade, would be considered as going on a trading voyage 7— 
A. Most certainly, it takes it for that purpose. 

Q. With regard to Gloucester vessels that go to buy frozen herring, 
do they, as a general rule, take a license to touch and trade?—A. They 
do. 

Q. It gives to the voyage, in the eye of the law of ae United States, a 
trading character 7?—A. Most certainly. 

Q. Do you mean that all Gloucester vessels that go fishing, say for 
mackerel, take out permits to*touch and trade ?—A. No, only those that 
buy frozen herring. We have never had occasion to issue permits to 
touch and trade to other vessels. The mackerel-fishing is conducted 
under a general fishing license. 

Q. Does the permit to touch and trade confine them to purchase her- 
ring, or does it authorize them to do a general trade ?—A. It allows 
them to trade in the products of any country, wherever they may be on 
its shores, or to which they may go; otherwise they would be liable to 

confiscation and seizure for tradiug under a fishing license. 
Q. Then, as far as the permit goes, a vessel goes out under it, say 
' mackerel- fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And when it buys frozen herring it is in the way of trade ?—A. 
It is a commercial voyage. 

Q. Is there a drawback allowed on salt used in the fishing business 
of the United States?—A. There is for all fish taken by Aterican ves- 
sels a drawback allowed to the amount of the duty, eight cents per one 
hundred pounds. In 1872 the duty was eighteen cents per one hundred 
pounds, and it bas been reduced in the tariff to eight cents per one hun- 
ee pounds, 


| | 
2958 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Is it allowed to mackerel fishermen ?—A. It is allowed to all fish. 
.ermen. 

Q. Can you form an estimate of the amount of drawback allowed at 
Gloucester ?—A. About $50,000. 

Q. Are you able to say what portion of that $50,000 was allowed for 
the mackerel fisheries as against those of cod and other fish ?—A. Ae- 
cording to the best of my jadgment about one-fifth. It would be accord- 
ing to the catch; sometimes it would exceed that a little. 

Q. How are you able to ascertain that ?—A. On the cancellation of 
the bond given on a withdrawal entry of salt the parties are obliged to 
take the amount of fish taken by the vessels, and where the salt was 
taken. We have a general standard by which we average that matter. 
The quantity of fish would show very nearly the amount of salt required, 
and upon that oath the bond is canceled. 

Q. Have you any idea what proportion that $50,000 would bear to 
the general drawback on salt allowed in the United States ?—A. I have 
not. Ihave no data on which I could fix any sum. 

Q. Can you tell me from any information you have, what the amount 
would be, either in quantity or value, of the mackerel] fisheries at Glou- 
cester; and, if so, state how you arrive at the information ?—A. I re- 
quested one of my inspectors to take the amount from their books, of 
owners aud fitters, for the last ten years, of the amount of mackerel 


taken by Gloucester vessels, not only on our own shores, but also in — 
the Gulf ot St. Lawrence, involving the whole catch of the place, which | 


I have here, with his affidavit that he has attended to this duty, and 
he makes the report in that form. 
Q. This is an official report by your inspector to you ?—A. Yes. 


Q. I dowt understand, however, that it is a part of your official duty to 


make this inquiry 7—A. Not in this special case. We make a return 
of the estimated fisheries for the benefit of the Bureau of Statistics, 


about June 30, the end of the fiscal year, which, of course, is an esti- — 


mate, because ‘there i is no return at that season from which to make 
. the table. 

Q. You have examined this return 7?—A. I have looked it over casu- 
ally. 

Q. Without reference to any other information, have you come yourself 
to any conclusion from that return ?—A.* My conclusion would be, as a 
comparative statement relating to the value of the bay fishery and shore 
fishery, that in 1866 and 1867 there is but little doubt our catches in 
the bay per vessel exceeded those on our own shores, but in succeeding 
years, including 1876 and not ineluding 1877, there is but little doubt 
our catches have constantly increased until the catches of our vessels off 
our own shores have doubled if not trebled those caught in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence. 

Q. Is it the duty of your office to report to the Treasury Department 
the loss of Gloucester vessels and the cause of loss 7?—A. It is. 

Q. Have you prepared a list of the vessels lost and the causes ?—A. 
I have a report here which embodiesa portion of the losses and the 
causes. 


\ 


Witness handed in the following table: 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2959 


No. game of | Name of vessel. Value. — Home port. |Date Where lost. 
x | a 
1 | Schooner..| Amazon ............ 1389-000) Locase | Gloucester..| 1830 | Bay Chaleur. 
ite. .00 ...-. Friendship .......- -| 2,500 |.....- Pas ae Oss sa:5's 1832 | Cape Sable. 
| Pa AQMAN Mascau cesses: Pe Ue Ra Ll fes Wists nse 1837 | St. John’s. 
en UO s0 nas Gentile s55525-22 022-1 co 000 lee eas Ree GOnccees os 1838 | Margaree Island, Bay St. 
. | Lawrence. 
5 |. Mary and Elizabeth.) 2,000 |...... Aen easeeree 1840 | St. Peter's, Bay St. Law- 
rence. 
6 |. Henrietta........... | 1000 || cence Sev OOl ceases 1843 | Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
or : Branch ioc c25.c-sse02| (4,000 | sacs we OU ecseaec 1843 0. 
8}. Only Daughter...... 1 S00. cca ne BS Waa 1845 | Off Cape Canso. 
9}. Enchantress ........ | 1-000}. e<.sc Se rea 1849 | Cape Sable. 
10 |. Lily eee eraser ree 4, 000 eo Bosna  uewscersey 1t51 | Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
al. Prinedtons::=.2-...- | 3,000 ROWS eeOe cawece 1851 Do. 
12 PUbICR ~ <2 oscksccewe | ee a are (| ve 1851 | BaySt. Lawrence, rundown 
at sea. 
13 Daniel P. King.-.-.... 3500+ -cce-0 bine sOOrcr cece 1851 | Cape Breton. 
14). Oa W ing. ss 23.35 Wed 400 Foca lees 1 ees 1251 cht 
IS |. Garland 2o525.. 2.5 £000 cccene Fer ere 1851 | Mal 
16 Powhattan.......... ie Bes. Vel ees [nas micasoes 1851 | Bay St. "Lawrence, at sea. 
17 |. Mleanors 22-2 22-2 22.14 s000Nl ccc08 eee pee Are 1851 | Malpec. 
18 Eyrean T. Colby ....| 5, 0U0 |...... roel | poet 12452 | Cascumpec. 
19 Jobn Gerard........ SOOO execs Pi RGOOn cca ae 1252 | Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
20 |. ‘Atlanta.).=225<ss022- (4003 es esse | estdO eewases 1852 Searls, Prince Eaward Is- 
‘ . and. 
21 Ocean Star....-...-.. } : Do. 
22). Hannibal c525- <2 | | Do. 
"33 |. Augusta Parker ....) Do. 
724 |. Rio del Norte. ..-.. Do. 
“2 |. Leadersc25c<525- Do. 
26 |. Champion .. At sea. 
27 |. -| Mary Jones Prince Edward Island.’ 
28 +) Along. iss. Canso, 
29). Lioness ..... Bay Chaleur, at sea. 
30 }.. Tteske)ss.s-5-% Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
Caen. |. Samuel Jones Do. 
32 |. ATIUERS ase cccee Do. 
+33 |. Hosea Ballan .....-. | Do. 
34 i. Mary Hart: ----<- >. sages aba 
35 |. Montezuma......-.-- See 
36 Village Belle........ eaat Bay Se" Lawrence, at sea. 
37 Three Sisters ....... SOO eck lees does s.'32 1858 Do. 
38). Premium ..... Saeed OT een Pree 00/2 225200 1858 Do. 
539 |. Geranium.........-. BOOIeesscloeee d0lscesacs 1858 s 
40). John Franklin ...... 4, 500 14 - Ss OOmecceee 1858 | Prince Edward Island. 
AL Alexandria .......-- 4, 000 CAs. eee 1858 | Newfoundland. 
42 Queen of Clippers...| 4, 000 CT eS OE ae 1858 Do. 
43 |. Ethelinde........... 4500 ))\\ce2 os -++-do ees 1859 Ragged Island, Newfound- 
and. 
44). Henrietta. ..........| 4,000 |...... |-+--do hseoee 1859 Do. 
45). Otros eek escsek T2600 esceslte 2. 0s ee | 1860 | Cheticamp, Nova Scotia. 
46 Moheniev-..5--- => ere U8 ae Een Raa ace | 1861 | Cape Sable. 
47 Coguette...........- $)200' ll roa5= shcuae GOs sees | 1261 | Port Hood. 
48 |. RO IKRNOO en cc coe 3, 400 Lr DB heme 1861 | Liverpool, Nova Scotia. 
49 *Republic.2s.5---~.,|) 2,.500!|-<--.- | seticracce cl 1861 Eeaeot Island, Newfound- 
> and. 
750 |. Narragangus........ 2 O00 ll 22s <ocleres 0032 5-2-¢; 1861 | St. Mary’s, Nova Scotia. 
1 |. R. H. Gakes.........| 6,000 |...... Pe etOOnenescsa| 1861 | Louisburg Bar. 
2 |. Ella Osborne .....--- 3. Q00!'|.--2--|0o000 ..22s0¢) LU6L.|' Cole: Bay. 
53 |. Ocean Traveller ...., 4,009 LOA) 00h. ses 1262 Newtoandined: 
34 ‘Alpalpac2-2.-c< eee: SU500i | sent EA (pean saree 1863 0. 
3) Maree: iltzie=<2- 7, 500 1 Pea doxees 1864 Do. 
56 |. eossnthies. 2s secssse- | 12, 000 Se BK Rael 1264 Osis: Harbor, Newfound- 
: | and, 
| a Bearleas :-2-a.eses<5.- 5 500) |scenes leer Paceees 1864 Newfoundland. 
moe |....do ..... Fleetwing ........-. | 6500) sce; EGA CIR ASeriee | 1864 Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
Meo |....do..... Gpisimbo:=.--:::. =; | 8,000) | -.-- 22)... G00. sccs8 1864 Peay 
tihices-GO ....: Northern Chief ..... | 9, 000 Ce Been Cy Beers | 1865 
mel |:’..do .....| St. Lawrence .....-. RS 500K! cece c | hance Ov Ss55 55) 1EB5 deg ed vaiand, Newfound- 
‘ | 
me |....do .....] Minerva ......-...-- | 3) 300) | Seecicelsoes MOG caaee's | 1865 Near | Pictou, Nova Scotia. 
3 |....do ..... Colonel Allen....... 12, 000 |...... Pee cesar | 1865 Near Louisburg, Cape Bre- 
moe j....do..... George F. Marsh. .../*31, 000 |......|. Se eres | 1866 Magdalen Islands, with 
Mei lcc..d0 ..... IM CcROWGiccsass05 110) S003 eens ~00sOO)Hepe=s-| 1806 Newfoundland. 
mee |..-.do..... General Sheridan. ..| 12, 000 4 |....do.......| 1866 | Cape 
67 .| Martha and Eliza... ou ein le aul serene 1866 Moeision Te Islands. 
soseun]--0c80 ..000--| 1866 ay Hood. 
12 |....do .......| 1867 | Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
2) Water Goirit..-.....| 0,075 !...<. A” Re ee 1869 Chetieaen. 


a 


2960 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


: | | | 
No. Seco Name of vessel. | Value. | ae Home port. Date. Where lost. 
| | | | ' 
i | | \ 
71 ‘Schooner... Abby H. Fraser.....| $6,000 |...... | Gloucester. .| "1369 Cape Negro. 
WD) [sos 0 nse. Pocumtuck ......... 1, 3; 000: |.---—. Visser teas | 1870 | Ship Harbor, Nova Scotia: 
43} 525200: 2500: George, R. Bradford = 7, 500 Gi} 3sdo's.225% 1870 | Newfoundland. 
Ae ae LOS See DManntlese: <2 22222 es. | 8,000 1D eetdos.cee <5 ' 1870 | Bay St. Lawrence, at sea. 
of OF ESL (1 paneer Exthange =. °222. 3. 5. 05300))--- 2. poe dO ses acee | 1871 | Cow Bay, Cape Breton. 
WG) ocsclO Msc ae _ Lizzie A. Tarr ...... [oy S00) [tae Prac OO.e esac 1871 | Manitou, Labrador. 
Tia eee eens Hisineur’ 22-3. 2222221) 1, 7001-2522 is tcu POs -oeees Is7l | Argyle, Nova Scotia. 
1S |icsedOyscnse | River Queen......--. aes Nova Scotia. 
49, j.2--d0)22-22 Samuel E. Sawyer... Magdalen Islands. 
BD a2.dOe so Thorwaldson........ Newfoundland. 
Bil stds eee Southern Cross ..... | Do. 
B20 [2 5 dOh i esse | Tana H. Burnbam...' Sable Island, Nova Scotia. 
Bay St. Lawrence, North 


&3 |....do.... | Charles E. Dame.... a ni 
| Jape, Prince Edw 
Peoria 


eos T. Friend .... 


) RoyallArch:.: --s22: White Head. 
Samuel Crowell.... | At sea. 
James G. Tarr ...... | Do. 


White Head, Nova Scotia. 
Cape Canso, ‘Nova Scotia. 
Port Mulgrave, Nova Seotia, 
Ship Harbor, Nova Scotia. 
Harbor De Bar. 

Magdalen Islauds. 

Ne weondioe 


| Eldorado -.......5...| 


| William WV. Dale ses: 


Tana A. Dodd. ...... 
| Mary Y. Dennis. .... | Passage from Newfound- 
OT. dG <s.5- Carry Francis ...... | 1500 '\s2sc52 iS Adore: 1875 | Malpeque Bar. 
98222500 2S | Bloomingdale ......- | Re O00! na ssee hese doisect2 5% 1875 | Woody Islaud, Cape Breton. 
OO sos sdo cas. Monsdneek:; 62-4 2222) 2. O00) lo 22cn.1- = e002 -ce | 1875 | Magdalen Islands. 
100) } 222. do:2.--. Hattie M. Lyons ----| 4.900" \225222\5232 doi 72328 1875 | Cape Hogan, Cape Breton. 
101 ....do.... | Jobn M. Dodge...... bo, O00 cece ote €0:.2525-- 1875 chest ay s Ledge, Yr., Nova 
| | otia. 
102 |....do .... | Earl Ellsworth...... OOO? I rocoas fe doe sase4e 1876 | Magdalen Islands. 
108 ico d0'...- =) || ReNANCG.-s- <<<. 5052 1 35600! | s222 55 BARS haha eee 1876 | Canso. 
1041: dows IAishGr 25-3: goes 5 eh lk ee | Ge ee tees €O.sc2e 1876 | Louisburg. 


2094). 23dor sos: George Peabody ..- |» 2,100) |..222.[..22.d0. ssc55. | 1876 | Bay St. Lawrence. 


GLOUCESTER, May 14, 1877. 

The above list comprehends the names of the vessels lost, their valuation, and the 
number of men lost, from the district of Gloucester, from 1330 to January 1, 1877; seid 
vessels were mostla engaged in the Bay of St. Lawrence fisheries and in the immediate neigh- 
borhood of the British Provinces. It does not include partial losses, or single, individual, 
or personal loss or injury to business, ete. | 

F. J. BABSON, | 


Collector District Gloucester. 


Q. It is taken from the ofiicial- reports of your office ?—A. It is. I 
may say that for about all the report you may see iu the various publi- 
cations regarding Gloucester, the information is derived from the cus- 
toms-office. 

By Mr. Davies: 
Q. That does not show the vessels lost on the American shore ?—A, 
No. 
By Sir Alexander Galt: 
@. How far back does the return go ?—A. To 1830. 
By Mr. Trescot: 
Q. The returns show where each vessel was lost 7—A. Where it was 
lost was reported at the office. 
By Mr. Thomson: 
Q. It is not a comparative statement of the losses in the gulf and on 
your shores in the same period ?—A, No. e 


. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2961 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Q. From your official records can you tell me whether the tonnage of 
Gloucester has increased or diminished from 1869, and in what branches 
of business ?—A. I have here a copy from the books of the tonnage of 
Gloucester from 1869 and number of vessels employed in the different 
branches of business. 

Witness read the following statement: 


Statement of the tonnage of the district of Gloucester, June 30, of each 


year. 
fee o10 vessels licensed for fisheries. ...... 0.20 cose cere soccee cooes---.- 24,891, 04 
Bemerese lS 1icensed: 10f COAStING <2 ac cece scinnecicsss oct alcesa ves cas 2,777. 80 
mvessels licensed for foreign trade... .....scn0s cece secces coccce 1, 416. 09 
574 ROtAl occ co savers saeeeets PSP OR ROR HOA Eee 29, 084, 93 
1870. 501 vessels licensed for fisheries.......-- eae Gace ee eae 24, 946. 96 
mee veanals, licensed ‘for coasting :. 23. 2-26 ss sccnceciecosesicesess tec 3, 433. 71 
Bee VRAIS LOTION CACO: <2. a)o2:sccoslsessinsd vewces e's eimai oaeasa ass 1, 900. 19 
570 Motel esc sesee cet ene se es eee ayes ecracaeees tena else eres 30, 280. 86 
1871. Meevenaels iCensed 10n 11GNeGries «:s—.cccze cose cee saeee sashes ecnine 24, 274. 81 
pe wGANe IB 11COUSE0 10r/COABLING: «<5. aca cuionecrse'secciececlesscccicece 4, 318. 36 
INOUE SOLBIOT STANGs 525 cies ange adesincccaasses sseescanwaes coeeed 1, 196. 24 
558 BROGAN e ce stesnnscks asiaecicsiciewetcis memset aleise nese seine eyes 29, 789. 31 
meter, Vendols ticen sed for fsheries....0.secc <a ccen.acvceesevsselccecesisces, 22,174.07 
myecesels licensed for Coasting -<-'<....<c<csoness sscccs e<csnc sunoss 4, 475. 90 
See VOBSOIS LOTOIPTM TIAGO coos ne as sees atsloow caste dcee sce ve scce a aes 1, 093. 42 
528 PROURIEen cae Oan esate stise acer verse sc eceeiveinsecisecssccace 27, 743. 89 
Gams s420. vessels licensed for fisheries... ... 2.2.2. ccce coc cece coce cece cee. 21,364. 59 
manvessels licensed for Coasting =. 25.65.52 cegssasisec esoess ccescsecse 7,110. 01 
MEPOMMOIA TOLET OT: GYAUG Sv cag sleds uncon stig eaee Kener aunegeds se wes 507.71 
521 DMG ao cng eae ose ae cuca eee tema esas Ge Aeeeteeey 28, 982. 34 


Semals licensed fOr HSNELiOd cacicceis sccais cc welsceciss ohee caus ceiciees 20, 421. 32 
vessels licensed for coasting...-....---.--- MISE COTO ECO eonoe 7, 947. 00 
REPOS TOLOLO NINA Ou aoe on acisn ela ae as caise sieweis aaialee come eine es 407. 04 

GEA fone pucacses = -enas asewcac cnet se ncagcmparsseceeie ue 28, 775. 36 
Wessels licensed for fisheries :< > s-ss24.ss2s%ess'seacccascawaassecaae 20, 646, 44 
MESON ICENSOd LON COASUIUM te rccatea'ec/74s sa cies as cos aebleice sina 8,531.51 
meeacls (Olelen tlAGOn.cecrse oes! “scnesias <siesiesw aesies ces ciececice ee 555. 31 

SEMI hee: cate oosk bueewe acs ous aweue bisa se ke sentaa dees 29, 733, 26 
MERNGLAYTOOUSEU MOL MADCLION cc 27 cacelecs sine ao aes osc ace des panes 22, 408. 31 
‘vessela licensed for coasting .< ... .....2 ccvccs cocwcece sececsnseces 11, 121,50 
vessels foreign trade...--.....--- Vesees cess cece veccenaaawedSesn 1, 051. 46 

Total ee edd Peewee wwe eae eae eeeee eeeeeee ere ee twee ewe 34, 581. 27 
vessels licensed for fishing ....-.. roe seumas oncses ces Dikieccans 22, 424. 55 
Wessels licensed for coastiNg . «2.2. ccce cocs cace cccnes onaspepececs 9, 148. 00 
vessels foreign trade.........- aren sqgnediiiies <vibandGeabeee as < 1, 795. 41 

Total ree eer tee EE BR tt Ret ed * 33, 367. 96 


a . 


a 


2962 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


By Mr. Davies: 

@. Have you produced a statement from the custom-house books of | 
Gloucester showing the number of vessels engaged in the fisheries — 
during the Reciprocity Treaty ?—A. I cannot say that I have directly, 

I don’t know whether I have furnished it or not to Mr. Foster under 
the certificate of the office. 

Q. You have not put it in your evidence ?—A. Not at the present time, 

Q. Can you produce it for me now?—A. I cannot without referring 
to the books of the office. 

Q. Are the books of the office in Halifax ?—A. No. 

Q. Did you bring down with you any such statement?—A. No; I did 
not. 

Q. When you say the statement might have been given to Mr. Foster, 
you mean you might have given it to him in Boston ?—A. I gave him in 
Boston a number of statements relating to the business of Gloucester, 
and there might have been a statement of that kind among them. I 
cannot give a statement of that kind to-day, because Il cannot remem- 
ber what classification I made for him with regard to vessels. . 

Q. This statement you have submitted only commences with 1869 ?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Why did you take that year to begin with ?—A. I had no special 
reason. 

Q. Is it not curious you should have commenced with that year ?—A. — 
It is nothing very curious. | 

Q. What special benefit was there in a paper showing the tonnage | 
from 1869 to 1877? Does it cover a period of years which would enable | 
any one to form a fair idea of the trade of Gloucester ?—A. It would | 
simply show the business of Gloucester in the years from 1869 to 1877. 
It covers a period embraced by the Washington Treaty, and a period 
when there was no Reciprocity Treaty in operation. 

Q. It is of value only as showing the actual tonnage during those 
snecified years?—A. That is all. I think there have been reports in 
Gloucester papers by which it appeard that the tonnage was 30,000 | 
tons, and the impression was conveyed that it was all engaged in the 
fisheries. I culled that statement to show where the gain has been for 
the past few years. ' 

Q. Those vessels that are classed in the statement as coasting vessels, — 
what are we to understand they are engaged in ?—A. Perhaps you will 
allow me to explain how we come to have a larger tonnage. A few years 
ago three-masted schooners were a specialty with our people, more espe- 
cially for the carrying of coal from the State of Pennsylvania, and two, 
three, or four vessels of larger tonnage were built for that purpose ; and, 
of course, we have a large number of vessels carrying stone from Rock- 
port. That embraces about all our coasting trade. The large gain is 
principally in the three-masted schooners. 

Q. Do you wish the Commission to imply from this statement that 
the fisheries of Gloucester have decreased ?—A. I have no wish in the © 
matter, except to put the plain facts before the Commissioners, and they — 
may draw their own inferences. | 

Q. Is that your own mind, your own impression ?—A. I have an im- — 
pression that the number of vessels is decreasing; the tonnage is very’ 
nearly the same. The vessels that are being built are of large tonnage, 
and more able to prosecute the different branches of the fisheries. 

Q. Does not the statement show an increase in the number of ves- | 

; 


sels?—A. Not to a very great extent; it does for the last two years. — 
Q. Compare 1869 with 1877. In 1869 the tonnage was 29,084, and in 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2963 


1877 33,367 tons, which is an increase, though not a very large in- 
crease 1A. You will observe that in 1869 24 000 tous were engaged in 
fishing as against 22,000 tons in 1877. The gain is on the coasting. 

Q. [ suppose I would be correct in saying that in an equal number of 
years, immediately preceding 1869, the tonnage had largely increased. 
For instance, from 1859 to 1869 1A. I could not say about that with- 
out referring to the books. 

Q. Does it not strike you as curious that you have come here to give 
statistics to the Commission, and yet do not produce from your books 
statistics showing what the tonnage was at the time of the commence- 
ment of the Reciprocity Treaty 7—A. I am perfectly willing to produce 
them. My only object is to piace the facts as nearly as I can before the 
Commission. 

Q. There were some statements pat in by you. You know nothing 
about them 7—A. Not personally. 

Q. Who handed them to you?—A. They have been sent to me since 
I have been here. 

Q. Have you read them ?—A. I have looked them over. 

Q. You know nothing about them ?—A. Not of my own personal 
knowledge. 

Q. You did not prepare them ?—A. No. 

Q. You had nothing to do with their preparation t—A. No 

Q. You cannot speak of the correctness of the preparation ?—A, 
‘Other than I can vouch for the fidelity of my own officer. 

Q. Those papers were put in your hands, and you handed them to the 
Commission 7—A. They were sent to me. 

Q. It appears from the affidavit that those papers were furnished to 
Mr. Blatchford by certain firms in Gloucester, and were not made up by 
‘him ?7—A. Not made up by him, but he went to the firms direct. 

And asked them for the statements, and they gave them to him ?— 
A. Yes 

Q. Those statements ‘are not under oath ?—A. No; they are not 

worn, except so far as Mr. Blatchford’s affidavit covers them. 

Mr. DAVIEs asked if it was intended to put in the statements in regard 

the business done by the Gloucester firms. 
_| Mr. Foster said that Mr. Davies, in cross-examining one of the 
| (Gloucester witnesses had expressed a desire to have a statement of the 
| business of all the firms in Gloucester, and accordingly he (Mr. Foster) 
| sent down to Gloucester and had that statement obtained. He put it in 
| for whatever value may be attached to it. It bore a somewhat striking 
| resemblance to the return of the catches made by the collector at Port 
| Mulgrave, printed as an appendix to the British Case, except that these 
contain the catches from 1869 to 1876 or 1877, while the collector at Port 
Malgrave gave them for 1873, 1874, and 1877, omitting 1875 and 1876. 

Mr. DAv1Es said he asked for a statement covering the period of years 

uring which the Reciprocity Treaty was in force, and these statements 

id not cover that period, but, on the contrary, covered a period of time 

which he did not ask for and did not want. 
|| Mr. Foster said he did not hear anything about the period of the 
Reciprocity Treaty until a few days ago, and he had told Mr. Davies 
shat if a counsel was sent to examine the books of merchants of Glou- 
| pester, they could have access to them. 

Mr. DAVIES submitted that there was an important difference between 
che submission of the Port Mulgrave returus and these returns. The 
‘ormer were embodied in the British Reply, while the latter they could 
10t cross-examine upon, because the witness said he knew nothing 


‘\ 


2964 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


about the contents, and they must be accepted by the Commission with- 
out cross-examination. 

Mr. FosTER said he put in the statement to resist the exhibit that 
appeared on the appendix E, “‘ Documents filed with the secretary of 
the Halifax Commission, and read at the sitting held on the 30th day of 
July, 1877, in support of the case of Her Britannic Majesty’s Govern- 
ment,” being a ‘return of United States mackerel-fishing vessels and 
their catch in 1873, as reckoned at port Mulgrave, N. 8., by the col- 
lector of customs at that port,” and a similar return for the next year. 
At the end it was signed David Murray, collector of PortMulgrave, Feb- 
ruary 9, 1875. 

Mr. DAVIES said the statement from the collector at Port Mulgrave 
had been before the American counsel almost since the commencement 
of the sittings, and they had had ample opportunities of ascertaining its 
truth and cross-examining witnesses on it. The papers now sought to 
be put in were not verified in any sense whatever. They appeared, 
however, to show a comparison of the catches on the American shore 
and in the bay, and yet omitted the time during which the vessels were 
employed in their respective trips. It would be remembered that they 
always cross-examined on that point, holding that the value of the com- 
parison depended on the length of time the vessels were employed. 

Mr. FostTER said he thought such a position should not be taken by 
gentlemen who had introduced hearsay evidence from the beginning to 
the end of the case, and who on 30th July put in those Port Mulgrave 
statements for selected years, omitting the years 1875 and 1876, when 
it was well known the fisheries failed in the gulf, and refused to produce 
the returns for the years upon his request, which he put on the motion- 
book, that there might be no mistake about it. If an appeal was made 
to him with regard to the evidence, he thought the evidence he now 


proffered was quite as good as the statement put in from the collector of — 


Port Mulgrave. But if what the British counsel really wanted was in- 
formation on the subject, let them accept tbe offer that had been made 
and send some one to Gloucester and have the whole returns taken. 
The statement he submitted stood like all statistical evidence, none of 
which was based upon the oath of the original source. 

Mr. THOMSON cited the rules regarding notice to produce, and said that 
by the notice given by Mr. Foster he required them to produce sabstan- 
tive evidence, and if he had been right he might have required them to 
give any evidence he thought proper. As to the statement of the col- 
lector of Port Mulgrave, it was put in with the British Reply. The Brit- 
ish counsel had not time to test the accuracy of the statement that had 
been tendered. In the former instance it was not put in as part of the 
evidence, but was filed as part of the case in reply; but in the latter 
the statement was put in as evidence. 

Mr. Foster said the British counsel had, hundreds of times, put in as 
evidence what somebody told somebody else. 

Mr. THOMSON said they had given hearsay evidence because it was 
admitted originally, and the American counsel commenced it themselves 
by cross-examining on hearsay statements. In this inquiry it was not 
possible they could carry it on without giving to a very great extent 
hearsay evidence; but the moment a tabular statement was presented, ' 
verified by no one, and not coming in as part of the answer on the Amer!- 
can side, they had the right to refer to the rules to see whether it fell 


with the evidence to be admitted. He held it did not. Moreover, it was — 


put in on the very last day. 
Mr. FostER. Whose last day ? 


‘ 


- -* J 5 = 
i J 
~ . 


“ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2965 


Mr. THOMSON. Yours? 

Mr. Foster. Certainly. 

Mr. KELLOGG asked to what rule the British counsel referred. 

Mr. Foster said the British counsel put in their statistics, a mass of 
them, on the last day of their evidence. 

Mr. THOMSON read the eleventh rule. 

Hon. Mr. KELLOGG said that a modification of the rule in regard to 
affidavits had been assented to. Aside from that, uo question could 
arise except that of relevancy. If the agents or counsel on either side 
assured the board that, in their view, that evidence was relevant to the 
hearing, he would be very slow himself to refuse its admission. It hap- 
pened that it was late in the hearing, but all evidence had to come in 
some time or other. 

Mr. THOMSON read the affidavit of Mr. Blatchford, and said it was to 
the effect that he went and asked the gentlemen to give him those state- 
ments, and he swore that they were copies of the statements which they 
were pleased to furnish him. 

Mr. FosTER said the British counsel put in a statement from George 
Murray, he being the collector of Port Mulgrave, of United States 
mackerel fishing vessels for 1873 and 1874. Mr. Murray stated the 
number of United States vessels, the number of barrels ; and in regard 
to where they were caught, stated: ‘* The most of those mackerel were 
caught about Prince Edward Island, small size mackerel; the best and 
largest were caught at Magdalen Islands. This may not bea true num- 
ber of barrels; only gathered this from the vessel men; they call them 
that quantity; it is not much out of the way either way.” When he 
found those statements he called for similar statements for the two fol- 
lowing years, 1875 and 1876, and he had kept reminding the counsel 
about them. One of the English counsel in cross-examining one of the 
United States witnesses, did so from a paper which they said was Mr. 
Murray’s statement of what American vessels had caught this year, 
whereupon he (Mr. Foster) called for it, and got it in as part of the 
/CLOSS- examination. 

Mr. WEATHEBBE asked if the paper was not an official report made 
by Mr. Murray to the department. 

“Mr. Foster. No. 

Mr. WEATHEBBE said if the paper was of the character of one pre- 


_)pared since the treaty went into operation, and to be presented be- 


et. tie 


fe the Commission, the rules should be conformed to, and it should be 


presented under oath. 

Mr. Foster said the paper was extracted from the cross-examination. 
ig 4g called, ‘‘ Account of American Mackerel Catches in North Bay, 

a ” 

Sir ALEXANDER GALT said he did not remember that the statement 
Was put in as evidence. 

Mr. Foster said it was not put in as independent evidence, but, after 
ascertaining what it was on which the witness was cross-examined, he 


| had stated that he was entitled to have the paper put in. 


Sir ALEXANDER GALT said the question was as to which side put in 
© paper. 
ero ae said that by the twenty- -fourth article of the Treaty of 
Washington the Commissioners “ shall be bound to receive such oral or 
written testimony as either government may present.” He had called 
upon an official of the Government of the United States to obtain sta- 
tistics with regard to this matter, and, in pursuance of that call, he had 
done so. The statistics came certified from the office, and. on behalf of 


2°66 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the Government of the United States, he (Mr. Foster) presented them 
as evidence quantum valuit. 

Mr. THOMSON said that hearsay evidence, though it was not usually 
admitted by judicial tribunals, was admitted of this description: evi- 
dence of information parties had obtained in the course of conversa- 
tion in regard to the particular matter in hand, at a time, in nine instan- 
ces out of ten, when they had no reason to know of this particular 
tribunal or inquiry, and the persons, therefore, had no object to over- 
reach. That was not the character of the evidence now offered ; this 
consisted of hearsay evidence obtained from different firms in Glouees- 
ter, for the especial purpose of affecting this tribunal, and made by no 
person under oath. If the official had visited the different stores and 
asked the different persons to show him their books, and if he had 
sworn on examining those books the statements submitted were trae 
copies, then it would be evidence. But here were people under no oath, 
but knowing well that an inquiry was going on in which their country 
was interested, who gave to the official just what they thought proper. 
True, he might state that he believed the statements true copies from 
the books, but unfortunately the Commission had no knowledge of the 
fact. That was the difference between the testimony which had been 
admitted and that now offered. 

Mr, FOSTER said he understood from the secretary that the Port Mal- 
grave statement had not been printed as part of the evidence; it ap- 
peared in the cross-examination, which was as follows: 


Q. Do you know anything about other vessels ? Some have got as many as 270 bar™ 

rels, from that down? I will read from the returns: (Reading the names of vessels 
_and catches.) These are gathered from the returns reported by them. 

Mr. Foster. Do you submit that to our inspection. 

Mr. Davies. Certainly. I would not have read it otherwise. (Explain in answer 
to Mr. Foster that these are returns of vessels that have been in the bay and gone 
home, as they reported themselves at Canso.) 

Q. Now, have you heard of any of these vessels that made any of these returns ?—A. 
I have heard of some of these vessels writing home. 

Q. Have the returns you have heard accorded with those I have read ?—A. I should 
think not. 

Q. You dcn’t know whether these returns are correct or not 7—A. I don’t know that 
they are. : 

Q. If they were would you be inclined to modify your statement as to the catches in | 
the gulf?—A. No; I would not. 

Q. You still persist in the statement you made ?—A. I don’t anything aboutit. 

Q. But supposing it correct, if it turns out to be correct, from comparison with pub- 
lished returns in Gloucester papers ?—A. Well, that might perhaps have the same 
information upon which that is based. 

_ Q. You would consider the reports in Gloucester papers to"be incorrect ?—A. I didn’t 
say any such thing. 

Q. Would you place reliance upon them ?—A. As a general thing I would. 

Q. What did you mean by saying that the Gloucester papers might have the same 
information as that I have read ?—A. The crews sometimes report more than they 
actually catch. 

Q. Then we cannot believe the reports we see in those papers ?—A. Well, there is & 
a a between sea barrels and packed barrels. Perhaps the mackerel would fall 
short. 

Q. That is by the difference between sea barrels and packed barrels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. But could not any person easily allow for that? 

Hon. Mr. KeELxLoGG asks if the returns just read are official. 

Mr. Davies explains that the returns are those which the vessels make as they pass 
through the Gut of Canso—that they are not official, but that the information is gath-* 
ered by persons engaged by the inspector to ascertain the catch from the captains. 


If this had not gone in with the evidence, he proposed to put it in as 
a paper on which the witness was cross-examined. 

Mr. Davies said that when cross-examining a witness, with respect 
to the number of American vessels in the bay, and the number of bar- 
rels they caught, he held npa2 paper in his hand and asked whether the 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2967 


vessel caught such a quantity. Mr. Foster asked him if it was a return, 
and he (Mr. Davies), said it was a return, and explained that it was in 
no sense an official one. Mr. Foster asked him, at the close of the ex- 
amination, if he would let him see it, and he gave him the document. 
It was, however, only part of what he had held in his hand; it was in no 
sense an official record ; it did not purport to be such, and was not read 
by him as such; but was only used by him for the purpose of cross- 
examination. 

Mr. Foster said, if the other part was produced, be would put it in. 

Sir ALEXANDER GALT said he did not think Mr. Foster could put in 
a return of the other side. 

Mr. FosrER reread the cross-examination referred to, and said it 
covered the paper. 

Sir ALEXANDER GALT asked whether Mr. Foster or Mr. Ford put in 
the return, for some one must put it in and be responsible for it. 

Mr. FOSTER said a paper forming a subject matter of cross-examina- 
tion was at the disposal of the counsel’on both sides of the case, and if 
the counsel opposed to the one who cross-examined, calls for the paper, 
it must be produced. When produced and inspected, he had the right 
to put it in as he pleased, not as independent evidence ot his own, but 
as part of the subject matter of the cross-examination. That question 
came up in courts frequently in this way. A counsel cross-examines a 
/ witness as to the contents of a letter the witness is said to have written, 

and the letter is introduced by the cross-examining counsel by way of con- 
tradicting the witness, but it is incompetent to be introduced as substan - 
tial evidence on either side. Then, as there has been cross-examination 
of the witness upon it, the party has the right to have the letter read 
in the case. 
Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Who puts the return in? 
Mr. Foster. I put it in, not as substantive evidence on my side, but 
) aS a paper drawn out from the other side, which the mode of their cross- 
examination entitles me to have in the case. 

Mr. THOMSON said there was no such rule of evidence known to Brit- 
ish courts as that laid down by Mr. Foster. Counsel may for the pur- 
pose of cross-examination produce a paper and ask a-witness whetber 
jhe had written a certain statement at variance with those he was then 
making, but before counsel could do that he must Lave the written 
Statement in his hand and submit it to the judge, and satisfy him that 
he was not attempting to frighten the witness by an imaginary paper. 
The witness was then requested to state whether such a statement was 
made by him in writing; but that gave the opposing counsel no right 
to take the paper. It remained entirely with the counsel as to what use 
he should make of it afterward to contradict the statements of the wit- 
ness during the examination ; if the witness admitted that he had made 
Such a written statement, then he might be asked as to how he recon- 
ciled the testimony he had given with the written testimony he had given 
atthat time. Such aruleas that mentioned was unknown to any British 
court—that. the fact of a counsel cross-examining @ Witness on a paper, 
gives the control of the paper to the opposing counsel. He had never 
heard of such rule in any American court, though, of course, he would 
not attempt to place his opinion regarding the rules of United States 
courts against those of Mr. Foster. If Mr. Foster, as agent of the 
United States, intended to take the paper and put it in evidence by 
reason of it having been in the hands of one of the British counsel for 
the purpose of cross-examination, he must take it and put it in as part 
of his evidence, vouching for its authenticity, and being responsible for 
its correctness. 


=~ 


_ Rs 
2968 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Hon. Mr. KELLOGG asked what was the motion in regard to the 
paper. 

Mr. THOMSON said he understood Mr. Foster was offering it in evi- 
dence. 

Mr. DANA said he did not so understand it. A question arose as to 
whether the paper was or was not in evidence. The Secretary thought 
it was not put in, and the Agent of the United States thought it was 
in. If it was in, no motion could be made for withdrawing it; if it was 
not in, the question was not whether they should now put it in, but 
whether it was not an error that it was notin. Their position was that 
the paper went into the case from the nature of the cross-examination, 
and if there was a mistake made in not handing the paper to the See- 
retary, or in the Secretary not understanding it was put in, they could 
rectify it now, not as testimony offered by one side or the other side now, 
but as something that heretofore should have beenin the case. There 
‘was DO very great difference in the common law as administered in the 
United States, Great Britain, and the colonies. It was all founded on 
reason. Suppose a cross-examining counsel asks a witness whether he 
wrote a certain paper, then on that paper being produced by him, not 
as evidence on his own side, but to contradict or impeach the character 
-of the witness, or to diminish the weight of his testimony, and the pa- 
per is made the subject-matter of cross-examination, that cross-examin- 
ation goes on the record, if the proceeding is by record, and passes into 
the hands of the jury, if the proceeding is at common law, and an es- 
sential part, in order that the cross-examination may be understood, is 
the paper. It counsel produced a paper and cross-examined a witness 
upon it, and had the cross-examination entered on the record, and then 
thought it would suit him better to have the paper on which the cross- 
examination was based in his pocket and put it there, in what position 
would the witness stand on the record? Any judge, reading the cross- 
examination, would say that he could not understand the witness or 
form an opinion as to the value of his testimony unless he saw the 
paper. In such cases it is considered an essential part of the cross-ex- 
amination, and counsel cannot withdraw it and put it in his pocket. 
The jury has the right, in order to understand the testimony of the wit- 
ness, to see the paper on which the questions were founded. In the pres- 
ent case, Mr. Foster had read the cross-examination of the witness, and — 
the paper produced for the purpose of his cross-examination. Their posi- 
tion simply was that the paper was an essential part of the cross-exam- 
ination, or was a sufficient part of the cross examination to authorize 

either party who desired it to putit into the.case that the cross-examin- 
ation might be understood. The party who produced it might put it in, 
not as original testimony to prove his case, but as something which, un- 
der the oral statements of the witness, affects the witness. If the state- 
ments of the witness went into the record without the paper on which > 
he was cross-examined, he was affected unfairly. The court would, 
no doubt, declare that as counsel had seen fit to cross-examine the wit- 
ness on the paper, in order that everything may be understood and 
justice done to the witness, the paper must go in with the cross-examin- 
ation. Mr. Foster had supposed the paper was already in the case; he 
(Mr. Dana) could not say he did so, for he had forgotten the transac- 
tion. He thought Mr. Thomson had referred to some other point, for it 
could not be held that counsel could cross-examine a witness from & 
paper, and say to the court and opposing counsel, ‘I insist on the an- 
swers of the witness going down, but I also insist upon putting the 
paper into the fire.” : 

Mr. THOMSON said that no witness could be cross-examined ona paper — 


— ss, 


=n, 


AWARD OF THE F.SHERY COMMISSION, 2969 


in the sense referred to by Mr. Dana, except in regard to a paper of 
which he had personally given evidence, or else in regard to a paper 
signed by himself. It was impossible for a witness to be cross-examined 
on a paper, except under such circumstances—either as regards a paper 
about which he had volunteered to give evidence and undertaken to hold 
himself forth as having a personal knowledge of it, or in a case where a 
witness has written a paper and holds himself responsible for the con- 
tents. When counsel holds up a paper, which it is not pretended is an 
official return, and asks questions from it, how does that prejudice the 
witness? He has the privilege of stating whether certain things are 
true or false, and his answers are recorded. Counsel might have all the 
names and information down in his brief, and how was the witness in- 
_jured by such a course? It had been said that the court could not under- 
stand the testimony unless the paper was putin. The testimony stood 
fairly enough. Mr. Davies had read what he pleased from the paper 
and asked the witness if such was correct or incorrect; that was all. 
Whatever was said by Mr. Davies, and the answers of the witness to 
the question, were taken down. He did not wish to throw any difficulty 
/in the way, and was quite prepared to discuss the question as if it had 
arisen at the time of the cross-examination. If the American counsel 
,had the right on that day to take’the paper out of the hands of Mr. 
Davies and put it in evidence, they had the right now. Mr. Davies 
, handed the paper over at the request of Mr. Foster, but he was not 
» bound to do so unless he pleased. Mr. Foster could not have put in the 
) paper unless Mr. Davies had been pleased to give it to him, and no court 
/ would have obliged him to do so. That paper having been handed over 
_ to Mr. Foster as a matter of courtesy, if he chose to offer it in evidence, 
they did not object, but he could not put it in as a matter of right, and 
make it part of the British evidence. If Mr. Foster offered it in evi- 
dence, they would treat it as American evidence wholly. 

Mr. DANA said that in Massachusetts, and he thought the United 
/ States generally, counsel were not permitted to cross-examine a witness 
from a paper. | 

Hon. Mr. KELLOGG said he recollected the circumstance very well, 
and he had uuderstood from what had then passed between Mr. Davies 
_} and Mr. Foster, as to whether the paper should be admitted or not, that 

}it was given to Mr. Foster, as he supposed, in the view of having it put 
in; he did not, however, know what the intention was. 

Mr. Foster said that a large part of the paper was read in evidence. 

SmrR ALEXANDER GALT inquired what was the value of the return. 

Mr.. Foster said that if the counsel had been pleased to cross-exam- 
ine on a chapter out of the book of Job, after he had done, he (Mr. Fos- 
ter) would have been entitled to have that chapter placed before the 
Commission, as the basis of his cross-examination. Mr. Thomson had 
said that they could not cross-examine on a paper in that way, but the 
answer to this was, that the counsel had done this; and this being the 
ease, how in the world could he be deprived of the benefit of it? 

He had supposed it was understood, that this paper was entered to be 
printed with other matter; and wanting a copy of it, he had obtained 
this from the Secretary that night. Certainly, he had supposed that 
the paper was in, else he would certainly have renewed the controversy 
the next morning. Having deliberately cross-examined on this paper 
with the view of forcing the witness to say that it was correct, and that 
he would not dissent from the statement, the inquiries “‘Are you going 
to be rash enough to disagree with these written statements ?” and “Will 
you venture to say that this Mr. Murray, of Port Mulgrave, has not 
better opportunities than you have of knowing how these matters stand ?” 


Yo 


2970 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


were to be read between the lines in Mr. Davies’s questions. This paper 
purported to be areturn ; they might call it official, non-official, or quasi- 
official, he did not care what, but it was presented to induce the witness 
to agree to the statements read to him; and this being the case, if this 
did not bring it into the case, as part. of the cross-examination, why, 
he was completely mistaken. 

The PRESIDENT. The decision of the Commission is that the paper 
shall be put in. 

The return in question is as follows: 


Account of American macxerel catches in North Bay. 


| 
Date. Name. Barrels, Date. Home or refitted. | Remarks. 
1877. 1877. | 
July .2 | Macleod Rear ero paacee 70 | Sept. 19 | Refitted .......... | . 
9 | Fiving Glond>ss.- 22.2 205: ‘Sent. 4 ||, Homes..:c- 2 -222-2 | 
NO: PAN GG 22s eewees cocs es Z35; | PLY YB ss Oe ose awses | 
10 somes Seuceeebersns 240 | Aug) AT 2:00;5-25. 05.2255 | 
10) | CcCSDaviseescesccsses 90 | Sept. 7 | Refitted ..........| 
19} | Jd. Clarke)2222- 225: 240 | Aug. 16 | Home...-. -.-.---. | 
Tis Cayenne ssc.c2.s ces 400'} Aug: (19) |. .do 2 o5css2555 | 
12 | Alice M. Lewis ..-.... 200 Awe ASE lel2<d0's2sssec esac! 
14 | Marion Grimes........ 150: | Avie: 30:1. 2:d05-.5--.-- 5: | 
14 | Frederic Gerring, jr-. B30 Soph eee e OO ee ace esas e | 
14 | George B. Loring ----. 250 | Sept. 17 | Refitted........... | 
3, | Mleetwood..--.-5-- <<. - 90°) Aop: 24>) Homes os: 25222. 2s< | 
17. Falcon (supposed) .- 60) |: Ang; 2335.0 52-205. -se55 | 
17 | Eastern Queen ......-. 120) Ang. 10i|o2 2 dons es ses nort 210. Back on second trip Aug. 
28. 

17, | Amos Catler’..-2-5265: 
AZ |(Rambler.-.:-.<c:2. 5: 
18 | Harvest Home........ 
48) Martha ©0202 0222.25 
19°| Ac Horton. 22.22 3352 
21 | Gertie Lewis. =... ..--:- 
21 |i John Wesley:....5.. <<. 
21 | Idela Surall -.—.:-...- 
AS es  F:¥) | ee a a 
21) Onward>-ss.--2 
21 | Miantinomah -. 


21 David F. Low.. 
23 | Nettie Moore .. 


26 | Lilly Dale ....... f 
27 | Ellen Dale .......-.... 
27 | Seth Stockbridge -.... 
27 <i, Mayo'see a .iccess 32 
27) | Bo Some =-=--; 
28 | Maggie Power . ie 
28 | Clara L. Dyer .......-. 
98:| Ocean’ King... 22-006: 
30 | Eunice P. Newcombe 
Ug: 2s) \OSSiNy.2--sacccene cases 
2) Challenge: so. -ss552-: 
2 Helen M.Crosby...... 
2 Lizzie E. Hopkins -:.. 
6 Etta Gott 
6 | Rattler ...... : 170 | Sept. 20 |....do -. } 
7 | MJ. Elliott.. z 60) |: Aug: 24 | 22--- sec. caf 76 oo foresail, and went 
| ack, 
7 Edmund Burke....... 230 | Sept. 21 | Home.............| 
WA. C: Newhall 2252822 140: | Sent:24 |. 2.dow rs sss, 
7 | Roger Williams....... 20) Nog 31S. dO) .cccess voce ss | 
7, Lillian M. Warner .... 190) } Aug: 21) | 2.28002) cess eezsoces 
7: [ENAGOUB soc ncseeeces 125 | Sept. 19 Refitted .......... } 
cj Wm, A: Penn. 3... 5-- 160 | Sept. 25 | Home............. 
8 | Lizzie Poor ........... 150 | Sept. 20 | Refitted ... ...... 
8 | Lady Woodbury ...... 220 | Sept. 24 | Home. ............| 
8 | Martha A. Brewer .... 150 | Sept. 20 | Refitted .......... H 
9 | Geo. B. McClellan..... 150 | Sept. 24 | Refitted .......... 
0) ). Waterfall <..c.csscecs 85 | Sept. 20 | Home............. 
14 | Grey Eagle... 5.--<- 16:|/Sepés) 4: |3=-deicssseceeesce: 
16 | awaska Maid..... Wone:) |) Ang 0 1255-00 (ccs canccc sees FT 
a | Cyrena ATIN to. cce coos 50) Some. 20}. --.00\. s<c22-22-cen 
| Alice M. Gould ....... None: | Aur Sti tsoo. dOtsvceciecceses 
a | Fred. P. Frye ........ Bl Awe: 95 lss2. 0 iccssnndeced 
21 Eleanor B. Conwell ... 85 | Sept. 24 | Refitted .......... 
| _ eee 8, 3654, 


This list is from vessels being in for supplies and going home, not including what is in the bay now 
“Only one supposed trip in the lot. Captain would not tell how many he 
D. MURRAY, JR 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2971 


Codfish-trips. 


Date. Name. pda | Date. | Home or refitted. | Remarks. 
| a = eee — — 
1877. | 1877. 
June 21 | Ada K. Damon........ 1,375 | Aug. 23 | Home............. Time, 4 months from Banks. 
Qt | Ben. T. Crockett ...... 1 400) |\- Ang 30H =: 00: cccencccesss 2.9 months from North Bay. 
BD ROGUS :ccncsccacece con 1,100 | Sept. 4 |....do............. | 24 months from North Bay. 
25 | Samuel Ober.......... fo 9008 bSepts (Fi lsccsOOu suse ees csccs 2.13 months from North Bay. 
May 21 | Lucknow ............. 1,100 | Sept. 7 |....do.. | 3.17 months from North Bay. 
25. | Oliver Cromwell ...... 900 | Sept. 17 |....do .. ----| 3.23 months from North Bay. 
Bt SOKANA. 55.5.5 05. - ean. SOO Sepa oie. Oi, 2. nw ctenn ee | 3:22 months from North Bay. 
OE By OS es 4,000: || SepieRia les aGor-. occ ooo55 | 4.1 months from North Bay. 
LEWIN: occscesantecscc: T-A00' POP reals. OO casace cisco. 4.4 months from North Bay. 
ad yal Fg VC ee 1,,000')| Sept. 24 |o.2 00) ccsesecssee05 | 4.0 months from North Bay. 
wi. wreomont...........-. 900; |‘Sept. 24. 150..00'. casos ene ae | 4.3. months from North Bay. 
18 | Bloomer .............. 1-200: |-Sent: 94 [5 s0do'; sce oc esccss | 4.6 months from North Bay. 
paemOndel. <2. .-0.00s025. 9105| (Sone. 94s. dOine<caccyeonse 4.6 months from North Bay. 
47} Gen. Soott ............ 900! | Sept: 25 |... dO. ...sapccsc.. | 4.8 months from North Bay. 
21 | Vandelia .. 800) | Septs. 25.) 52.000. s.e-0cn ose | 4.4 months from North Bay. 
95") Julian ....... sake 800 | Sept. 22 Lost at Port Hood. 
25 | Arcola....... Seis 800 | Sept. 25 | Home.............| 4.0 months from North Bay. 
24 | Géo. Water 900 | Sept. LD jleee OO neveteqese sic} | 3.20 months from North Bay. 
| 16, 600 | Quintals codfish from North a on trawls. 
2, 000 | Quintals codfish on trawls, small trips. 
(Rotel wecascseses 18, 600 | American vessels. 


There were a fleet of small vessels which went home from early trip before the boat was out. This 
includes American vessels only. Have these figures from captains and crews. 
D. MURRAY, Jr. 


~ SEPTEMBER 25, 1877. 


By Mr. Davies: 


Q. When you were examining the books for the purpose of making 
up the return of vessels lost, did it occur to you to compare the pro- 
portion of vessels lost in the bay with that lost on George’s Bank ?—A. 
No. I did not examine them for that purpose. I did not have a return 
on that point. 

Q. How was this returm prepared ; you say, I see, in some cases, that 
the vessels were lost “at sea”?—A. You will observe, with regard to the 
preparation of reports of that kind, that we get from the owners the 
best information they can give in this respect; they report every vessel 
that is lost. I could not swear to the exact accuracy of every report; 
these reports are prepared in the same manner as all custom- house busi- 
ness is usually done. 

Q. Is this information obtained from the owners at the time of the 
loss of vessels?—A. Yes, as nearly as possible, as a general thing. I 
can only tell in this regard for my own term of office. We have always 
secured this information as soon as vessels are lost. 

Q. If I went to the books of your office, would I find the statement 
contained in this return on their face, about the time these vessels were 
lost, as you have it copied out here?— A. You would find some of them 
at the end of the year when we collect the information—when we are 
obliged to make up the list of vessels; and we drop from the list those 
which we cannot carry over into the next year. 

Q. Some I would find there?—A. Yes. 

Q. And some I would not find?—A. For previous years you would 
find them at the end of the year. 

Q. Would I find them all there ?—A. Yes, all we carry over; we have 
alist of vessels for 1876; and at the end of the year, in January, we 
make up a new list and transmit it to the department—in which we put 


‘ 


| all the vessels owned in the district and how they are disposed of, stat- 


| 


. Ing whether they have been sold out of the district or whatever way 
ey may have been disposed of, or lost, or wherever they may have 


e. 
2972 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


been transferred—we make up a report showing exactly where they have 
gone. 
.—) 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Annually 7—A. Yes; annually. We make up special reports in 
this relation. 


By Mr. Davies : 


Q. Is this compilation taken solely from your books ae That.is my 
clerk’s report, prepared in the usual manner in which such things are 
done. 

Q. Did your clerk compile this statement solely from the books of 
your office ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Did he make any inquiries outside, in order to make it up ?—A., 

I think he took it from the books of the office. 

Q. Did you examine the books to see whether this was the case or 
not?—A. No, I did not. 

Q. Is this in your handwriting ?—A. Yes: he gave me the names of | 
the vessels as they came along, and I put them in. | 

Q. Is there a report made by the owner to your office at the time a 
vessel is lost?—-A. This has always been the case since I have held the — 
office. | 

Q. Since when has that been ?—A. Since 1869, 8 years ago. 

Q. And do you not know whether this was done previous to that ?— 

A. For the time previous to that, we took what was in the books. 

Q. You cannot tell what was the practice previously in this respect ?— 
A. No, 

Q. You cannot tell how the clerk made up the statement for the time 
previous to your term of office?—A. I cannot tell; of course my clerk 
derived his information from the books. 

Q. You cannot tell whether this was taken solely from the books; 
you have not examined the books ?—A. No; as I said before, the clerk 
did this. My business is simply execative, and I do not perform cleri- 
cal work myself. 

Q. Suppose that a vessel starts from the St. Lawrence and is not 
heard from; how is it entered ?—A. The owner gives the best information 
that he can on the subject. 

Q. It is entered, lost at sea?—A. Yes. 

Q. This statement embraces the year of the great gale?—A. It in- 
cludes all the years back, until 1831. 

Q.. How did you arrive at these valuations?—A. We got them from 
the office. 

Q. At the time the vessels were lost?—A. As near the time as possi- 
ble. 

Q. During the years in which these occurred, at any rate?—A. Yes; - 
a direct report is now required of us regarding every vessel that is lost; 
as soon as we know that a vessel is lost, we are obliged to make a report 
embracing the facts. 

Q. Did that rule extend to 1831, when this list commences ?—A. No; 
those values were taken simply from the yearly returns. 

Q. These are approximate values ?—A. They must be so, I think, as 
a general thing, except within the last 8 years. 

Q. How did you obtain the valuation of the Amazon, the first ves- 
sel?—A. That was probably the owner’s report at the time when he 
made the report to the custom-house. 

Q. You have never examined the books to see?—A. No, not myself 
personally. I made it up from my clerk’s return. 


——== 


LL TT 


AWARD. OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2973 


Q. I see that some vessels in the first part of the list are charged as if 
made to the Bay of Chaleurs; are you aware that formerly the Bay of 
St. Lawrence was called the Bay of Chaleurs ?—A. Yes. 

Q. When it speaks of the Bay of Chaleurs, I suppose that somewhere 
in the gulf is meant?—A. Yes. 

Q. This list embraces Newfoundland too?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the Banks ?—A. If on the Banks, I suppose, offshore here. 

_ [| think that all the places are designated as nearly correct as possible. 
_  . Are they all fishing, or are some trading vessels?—A. I think 
_ that they are about all fishing-vessels. 
Q. The lost vessels, Alexandria and Queen of Clippers, are charged 
for 1858 to Newfoundland; are you aware whether any fishing-vessels 
then went to Newfoundland ?—A. In 1858? 
Q. Yes.—A. O, yes; I think they did. I think that the Newfound- 
land frozen-herring business has been pursued for some time in Ameri- 
can vessels. 
Q. You do not accurately remember the first year when they went 
there?—A. No. The statement simply covers, as far as my memory is 
; concerned, my own term of office. I was away previous to that time. 
Q. Is there an entry in your books giving, for instance, the value of 
this vessel, the Alexandria, lost in 1858 at Newfoundland ?—A. I pre- 
) sume so, from the report made by the clerk to me; that paper was pre- 
_ pared in the same manner as was the case with these other papers. 
Q. Do you know what the total number is when added up—is it 105?— 
_ A. [think it is about 105. | 

Q. Down to the end of 1875, 101 vessels were lost in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence and Newfoundland fisheries, according to your return ?—A. 
And on the coast of Nova Scotia, I suppose. 

Q. This return embraces all the British provinces?—A. Yes. 

Q. Of course they may have been lost on their way up from Glouces- 
ter?—A. Yes; I cannot say as to that. 

Q. I find in Procter’s book concerning the fisheries of Gloucester, 
' which has been quoted here so frequently, a table giving the losses ot 
' fishing-vessels from 1830 to 1875 inclusive, the total number being 333 ves- 
sels; and the difference between your return and this return would 
represent vessels lost in fisheries other than those mentioned in your 
return ?—A. Of course. 

Q. One hundred and one during this period were lost in our fisheries, 
and 232 in yours?—A. I would say that most of those statistics are 
made up from our office. 

Q. Have you made up a statement to show the percentage of loss? 
My attention is called to a statement written at the foot of this compi- 

lation, in which you say, ‘Said vessels were mostly engaged in the Bay 
of St. Lawrence fisheries, ‘Then evidently some of these vessels were 
' not engaged in those fisheries ?—A. Most certainly. 

Q. They were traders probably ?7—A. They were engaged in other 
fisheries probably ; they might have been engaged in the Bank fishery 
and still have been lost on the coast of Nova Scotia. 

Q. There is also added, ‘Aud in the immediate neighborhood of th 
British provinces”?—A. You are to understand that our Vessels fish 
off the British provinces, and their losses are reported to us by their 
owners for the different points wherever the vessel may have been lost, 
as nearly as can be ascertained. I suppose that is the idea which they 
Wish to convey. 

_ _Q. When you wrote “were mostly engaged,” you had in your mind 
_ the idea that some of them were engaged in other pursuits than those 


— — 


> — 
= . 


2974 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


which are specially mentioned ?—A. I meant that they were engagedin © 
fishing at other points besides the Bay of St. Lawrence abont the Brit- © 
ish provinces; that is intended to cover the whole of the Nova Scotia 
and Newfoundland shores. They go in in case of storms. 

Q. Have you never had occasion to ascertain the percentage of loss 
of your fishing-vessels 7—A. Myself ? 

Q. Yes.—A. No, I have never made that a subject for specific statis- 
tics at any time. 

Q. Do you know whether this loss exceeds 24 per cent. ?—A. For the 
entire fleet ? 

Q. Yes.—A. I could not ascertain that without going into the figures. 

Q. And you never have ascertained it ?—A. No 

Q. Have you ascertained, in conversation with leading meu, whether 
it has been more than 24 per cent. ?—A. Not in that form. 

Q. In what form have you done so ?—A. We always understand that 
we lose from 10 to 15 vessels and from 100 to 150 men every year in our 
general fisheries. 

Q. That does not show what the percentage is?—A. Not by any 
means. 

Q. What percentage is this loss; for instance, would 23 per cent. in- 
surance cover all such losses ?—A. You mean whether 24 per cent. of 
the whole fleet is lost? I suppose that the loss would fully equal that. 

Q. And you think it would not be more ?—A. I know that it would 
not be a great deal more than that. 

Q. And the difference between that and what was charged for insur- 
ance would represent the profits made ?7—A. I do not know what you 
mean. 

Q. I want to ascertain the value of the vessels that leave Gloucester 
to pursue the fishing-business, and whether 23 per cent. of that valuation 
would cover the loss that is incurred here ?—A. Allow me oné moment: 
I did not understand that question as applying to insurance. I thought 
you asked whether the loss amounted to 24 per cent. of the whole num- 
ber of the vessels. 

Q. That is just the way in which I put it.—A. But as far ds insurance 
is concerned, that is a matter of which I have no knowledge whatever. 

Q. I want to ascertain what percentage of the fishing-vessels which 
leave Gloucester is lost ?—A. Well, we generally lose from 10 to 15’ 
every year, out of nearly 400 vessels. 

Q. In the annual report of the Bureau of Statistics of the United 
States for 1876, on page 15, under the head of Trade with Canada, dar- 
ing the year ending the 30th of June, 1876, I find a table of values, 
which had been omitted in the returns of the United States customs- 
officers on the Canadian border, as appears from an official statement 
furnished by the Commissioner of Customs, amounting to $10,507,563, 
as against $15,596,224 for the preceding year: now, the fish exported 
from the United States into Canada by railway do not appear in any 
return, do they ?—A. That is a thing with which I have never had any- 
thing to do. 

Q. I thought you might know something of this trade, and be able to 
explain the discrepancy between the United States and Canadian re- 
turns?—A. That is a matter entirely beyond my jurisdiction; that comes, 
by the Grand Trunk Railway, I think. 

Q. You do not know whether they make any return of fish exports, 
or of trade that is thus carried on 1—A. We have no experience of that 
kind at our office. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2975 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Q. Whenever you give an order to a clerk to make such a report as 
the one regarding the loss of vessels, you expect this to be done from 
the custom-house books and papers, and from nothing else 7—A. Of 
course. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. In the return concerning lost vessels, do the coasters include the 
herring-fishing vessels?—A. No. The herring-fishing vessels all run 
under fishing licenses, with permits to touch and trade; these are papers 
issued from our office, allowing vessels to pursue any business under the 
laws of the United States. The coasting paper and the fishing license 
are different papers, confining, of course, those who run the vessels to 
sail under them, and to do such business as is specified in these licenses. 

Q. Do vessels which take out fishing and trading licenses frequently 
change their business ?—A. They cannot do so; they are not allowed to 
do it; they can only pursue the business for which they take out a 
license. A permit to touch and trade is given only for one voyage. 

Q. If a vessel goes to Fortune Bay with a fishing license, and a touch 
and trade license, and returns to Gloucester, can she go out again with- 
out renewing her license to touch and trade ?—A. A fishing license is 
given for one year; and a touch and trade license for a voyage; and at 
the end of such voyage, the vessel surrenders that permit. This permit 
isa peculiar paper, intended for that business only. 

Mr. Foster. Unless I have made some accidental omission, may’ it 
please the Commissioners, the case of the United States is now closed, 
with the exception of the case just spoken of, to wit: I propose, if per- 
mitted to put in, incase they come within a week, detailed reports from 
the inspector-general of the State of Massachusetts, showing the number 
of barrels of mackerel which have been packed in the State of Massachu- 
setts, during a long series of years, which I think may be valuable, going 
back, in fact, I do not know how far. I understand that the fisheries 


_ statistical books of the British provinces are in the case. 


Mr. THOMSON. Yes. 
Mr. Foster. That is all. 


CA Ee IN IE x. ME, 


AFFIDAVITS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 
No. 1. 
[CONFIDENTIAL |] 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 


_ 1, What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Freeman Hodgdon; age fifty-two years, I reside at Boothbay, 
State of Maine. 
_ 2 What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
‘the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
-eateh of the different kinds of fish? I pursued the business for twenty 
years. I have been in all the waters frequented by American and 
‘Canadian fishermen. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
‘have also had the opportnity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. Yes. Thomas Berry has had more ex- 
‘perience in the fishing business than any other man on our coast. John 
‘Hodgdon, Joseph Maddocks. 

_ 4, A copy of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
‘known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
‘amine articles 18, to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 


have. . 


] 
: 


_ §. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
‘those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 


-|provisionsof the Treaty of Washington? Cod, Mackerel, Hake, Hallibut, 


Herring, and many others of less importance. 

_ 6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, in- 
elusive? If you can do this, please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. The quantity is very great. I do 
not know exactly. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
is etal, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 

Ind, 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 

by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


| off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 


of Washington? I cannot tell. I should think the value of fish caught 
‘je 187 F 


2978 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


by American sudjects and that caught by British subjects was abou 
equal. 


9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters o 


your State; and if so, to what extent and value? They do to a smal 
extent. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction thar 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? I cannot tell. 


“Ree 


~~ 


11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries — 


cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish ~ 
eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what — 


extent annually? I think not. 


12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the A 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the © 


number of men employed upon them? I donot know. 


13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 


coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con — 


sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish. 


eries? Nearly all are deep-sea fisheries. Occasionally they find it ad. — 


vantageous to fish in-shore for mackerel, but they can usually do better — 


outside, even for mackerel. 


14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the ' 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel and Herring chiefly, and sometimes Cod. © 


fish. 


15. If you state that the inshore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 


for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within © 


the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits ?. Much the larger part are taken off shore. There have been 


many years when the in-shore fisheries for mackerel were worthless. The — 


fish played off-shore the whole season. 


16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American © 


fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore — 
limits ; and in the summer season especially are not maékerel generally — 


found on the bavks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 
The larger part are taken outside of the in-shore limits. Mackerel are 
found in the Gulf in summer and not in-shore. 


17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen — 


to fish in Colonial inshore waters? Perhaps the inshore fishery for 
Mackerel is injured somewhat. But the great quantity of bait thrown 
over by American fishermen inshore tolls the fish in, and so makes it the 
more convenient for Canadian fishermen. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, Be fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? I think 
they are. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? Hew much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Porgies. It is all taken on the American coast. None is takem 
on the Provincial coasts. The principal part is taken within three miles 
of shore. 

20. Please state as to each classof fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning @ 
vessel for carrying it on, est enna by the average length of the. 


ss as 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2979 


cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
tothe home port. Tofitout a hundred ton cod-fisherman costs from, from 
$2,000.00 to $3,000.00, and they make two trips per year, usually. It 
costs a little less to fit a vessel for Mackereling. Our vessels are all 
manned upon the shares. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same question as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is, and the reason for it. 
They have the advantage of usin the cost of vessels, and in cost of 
salt. What the difference amounts to I cannot tell; but it is consider- 
ably in their favor. k 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? I was master of a fisherman some twelve years, and fished 
off the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Branswick, and Prinve Edwards 
Island. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are to 
be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Cod, Mackerel Herring and Hallibut. Prinei- 
pally Cod and Mackerel. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open to 
American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. I cannot answer 
this definitely. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and whatis the value? But very little if any. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in.the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ? 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is 
it not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
Season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. They do, at the ports of Charlottetown, 
Halifax, the straits of Canso. The trade is quite extensive, but I can- 
not state its extent. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 
British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both 
without and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels 
are so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number 
of men employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken 
there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is 
the proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount 
of such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 


amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? I cannot tell. ; 
28. What percentage of value. if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 


2980 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the coast ; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist? 
It is impossible for me to tell. Sometimes the advantage might be con- 
siderable: in other cases it would be nothing. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? I do not know how valuable the privileges granted 
by the Treaty of Washington may prove. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? I think it 
is more beneficial to the people of the Provinces. 

81. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? I do 
not know. 

32. For all No. 1 and No.2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 


herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the | 


only market? I think it is the principal market. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive? I do not 
know. 

FREEMAN HODGDON. 


Sworn to and subscribed before me this tenth day of June, 1873. 
ORRIN MCFADDEN, Collector of Customs. 


No. 2. 
; . [ CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Thomas Berry, age sixty-three, I live at Boothbay Me. 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of 
the catch-of the different kinds of fish? I have been a fishing on the 
Banks and on the coasts of the British Provinces for fifty-one years. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 


have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ? If so, - 


please give some such name. Charles Reed. — ; 

4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done sot 1 
have examined the treaty. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Principally Porgies and Mack- 
erel, would be sought for by the fishermen of the Provinces. We. have 
also cod haddock hake, Hallibut, and many other kinds. 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1804 to 1872, inclu- 


| 


i 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2981 


} 


sive? If you can do this, please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. I cannot tell. The amount is very 
great. The quantity taken on our coast by American Fishermen greatly 
exceeds the quantity taken on the coasts of the Provinces. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. Iam not able. 

8 What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? The people of the Provinces take as many codfish I 
think as the people of the States. Of Mackerel we take far the larger 
quantity, probably three times as many. They take the greater part 
of the Herring. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure: bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and, if so, to what extent and value? They get a great 
part of their bait ‘from this State. They catch some and buy some. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? It is a great privilege. 

- The Porgie bait which they procure from this State is far better tan 
any other for taking Mackerel. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hindrance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? -I think it would injure our fishermen very little. 
Neither would our fishing on Canadian coasts injure theirs. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? I cannot tell. It is not large. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of thein-shore fisheries? 
Certainly three-fourths are deep sea fisheries. 

+» 14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel and Herring. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
Within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? The off-shore fishery has been the most valuable for 
the last thirty years. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore ? 
Much the larger quantity is taken outside the in-shore limits. Mackerel 
are generally “found on the banks. When we can eatch-Mackerel off 
shore they are of superior quality to those caught in-shore. 

- 17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No, sir, they are not: it is an ad- 
vantage to them, by tolling the fish in. 

18. “Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 

"shore, giongside a fleet of American Fishing-vessels, from which large 


— 


2982 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? They are. 
The small fishermen of the Provinces are in the habit of following the 
American fleet. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Porgie Bait. Taken on the coasts of this State. The greater 
part is taken within three miles of shore. The United States fishermen 
take none on the coasts of the Province. The fishermen of the Provinces 
will derive great benefit from the privilege of taking Bait on our coasts, 
as they have none on their own. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. It will “cost to fit a vessel of one hundred tons from 
$2,000 to $3,000 for a codfishing cruise. For a mackerel cruise from 
$1,200 to $1,500. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 

same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far as 
you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference between 
the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these 
respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. It would 
cost less. Salt, cordage, lines, and nearly all their fishing tackle costs 
less. And they can build vessels for much less than we can. 
_ 22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? I am acquainted with the cod and Mackerel fishery. I have 
been skipper of a fisherman for the last thirty years. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel chiefly. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872, inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open- 
to American fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. I do not know. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? They do not. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season ? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. They do in the ports of Canso, Charlottetown, Port 
Hood and Halifax. They do this to a large extent; and will do it much 
more under the Treaty of Washington than ever before. Vessels will 
now refit there. The advantage of this trade to the people of the Proy- 
inces will be very great. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2983 


27, Have youany knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
eatch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? I cannot tell how many: itis a 
yery large fleet. The proportion which would fish within the three-mile 
limit is very small. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is,in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? It is not worth over five per cent. We used to buy a license to 
fish inshore when we could buy them for fifty cents per ton. After the 
price was raised we could not make it pay to buy license. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate, them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? Ido not think they do. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? It is more 
beneficial to the people of the Provinces. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Ido 
not know. They ship all their fat mackerel to the United States. 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 


herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 


only market? Yes. 
33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 


States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 


free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 


' them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. I do not 


know. The amount must be large. 

_ 34, If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them an- 
hually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. There has been 
Yery little exportation of these articles to the Provinces during the last - 
ten years. 

_ 35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
Tespect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
Which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
I believe that the priveleges of bringing their fish to our markets free of 
duty considering that they can catch them cheaper than we can will stim- 
ulate their fishing industries much more than the prevelege of fishing 


rill accrue to the Provincial towns on the coast will of itself compensate 


alla will stimulate ours. I also think that the increased trade which 


> e 


a 


' 


ie 
; 3 i # 


- 


| 
2984 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


for all the detriment that can result to their fishermen from our inshore 


fishing. 
THOMAS BERRY. 


Sworn to and subscribed ieee me this tenth day of June 1873. 
ORRIN McFADDEN, 
Collector of Customs. 


NOs 3. ‘ 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PROPOUND.| 
ED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, | 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? (William Eaton) (58) Castine, Maine 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been employed in the Amer- 
ican and Canadian, Cod and Mackerel fisheries, sixteen years 

3. Can you give ’ the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? 
If so, please give some such name. Capt. Joseph Stearns, Castine 
Maine, also Capt James Torrey Deer Isle Maine. 

4, A copy of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
cyte examined the above-named articles 

. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
ree which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Cod, Halibut, Hake, Haddock, 
Menhaden Pollock and Herring 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, incla- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where | 
that information can be procured. 

7. If you are able to doso, will you state the amount and value of the | 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the treaty of Washington? Please state them in 
detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
’ off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 

of Washington ? 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They procure clam- 
bait and Menhaden, mostly by purchase. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be- 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries | 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen ; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually ? 

12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2985 


fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them ? 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? The in-shore and deep-sea fisheries, in my opinion are of about 
equal value ; 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the in- 
shore fisheries? Mostly Mackerel & Herring, but considerable quan- 
tities of Cod Halibut Hake & Haddock are caught in shore 

15. If you state thatthe in-shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? One third in, and two thirds off shore. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and not within shore ? 
By far the larger quantities are taken outside the inshore limits 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen - 
to fish in Colonial inshore waters? They are benefitted by the inshore 
fishing by reason of the fish being * tolled” inshore by the large quan- 
tity of bait thrown by the fishermen 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing}in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? There is 
certainly more fish caught 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
Shore? Clam bait and Menhaden is the principal bait, taken mostly on 
the coast of Maine and Massachusetts 
_ 20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 


_ or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning a 


vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
tothe home port. It will cost for a vessel of 160 tons for a 4 months 
¢eruise $5,000, in the cod fisheries A vessel of the same size could be 
fitted and manned for a mackerel cruise for about $3,000 for the same 
period. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able todo so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is, and the reason for it. 
The cost of vessels fittings and maning &c would not be so much be- 
Cause the custom house fees on salt are not so much, the pay of crews 


| 48 less, also the cost of bbls, cables, anchers, and some kinds of provis- 


iens are less. Their vessels cost about one third less than ours. 
22. Are you acquainted, and for how long; and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 


_ Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 


2986 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


fisheries? I am, or have been for a period of 15 years in capacity of 
Master of vessels engaged in the cod and mackerel fishiries 

23, What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? principly cod, and mackerel. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Not toa great extent. Some capelin, herring 
and alewives are taken. 

“6. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ? 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is 
it not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. They do obtain the articles mentioned above, 
in Port Hood Cape Canso, Charlotte Town, Port Mulgrave Molpeak, &c. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 
British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both 
without and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels 
are so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number 
of men employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken 
there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the 
proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit ? 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist ? 
In my experience the advantage has been very little. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or. to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? Drying and curing don’t amount to much. The 
priviledge of transshipping cargoes is of some advantage. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? In my opin- 
ion the advantage is in their favor. 

dl. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all de- 
scriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 


32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat’ 


herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the - 


ouly market. 
23. It you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada which are to be mada 


free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state — J 


annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 


4 


a 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2987 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said treaty, please state them aunually 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inelusive.. a 

| 35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
| Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are, or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said treaty to the 
_ United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject whieh 
you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state 
_ It as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
t WILLIAM EATON, 
CASTINE, July 5th, 1873 
Personally appeared the above named William Eaton, and on oath 


says that the foregoing statement by him signed is true to the best of 
* his knowledge and belief. . 


_ Before me 

| WM. H. SARGENT, Jus. Pea. 

. No. 4. 

[CONFIDENTIAL. | 

(QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 

— POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


f 
i* 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
jreside? L. G. Crane; Gouldsborough Maine. 
| 2, What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
| the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
| catch of the different kinds of fish? Have owned fishermen, and have 
| been fishing. 
_ 8 Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
' who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? 
| Ifso, please give some such name. Hadlock & Stanley. 
__ 4, A copy of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
| known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
| amine articles 18 to 22, inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have examined them closely. 
5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
' those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
; provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Codfish, Mackerel, Herring 
' Porgies, Halibut 2) pe 
6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inela- 
| Sive? If you can do this please do so; and, if not, please state where 
_thatinformation can be procured? Could not answer correctly. 
7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them in 
detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
+I cannot answer this correctly. 
_ 8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


2988 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? I think that both nations are on equal footings. 

9, Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so,to what extent and value? They do procure 
their mackerel bait. Bait for a vessel of 12 hands will cost three han- 4 
dred dollars : 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and care 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? I think they would. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? There never has been any, bat 
probably will be equal to our own. ‘ 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? Seven-eighths of our fishermen use the offshore fisheries. 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
inshore fisheries? Mackerel altogether. 

15. If you state that the in-shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-sbore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? One-eighth inshore 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American ‘| 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 
Much the largest quantity taken outside the three mile limit. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? Not any. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? If it was 
not for the American fishermen the Canadian fishermen would be unable 
to get any fish in their small boats. | 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Proy- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Porgies & Clams procured on the Coast of Maine—seven 
eighths within three miles of the shore. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning @ 
vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail, the elements which go to make 
up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning to the 
home port? A vessel of one hundred tons manned by fifteen men for 
three months voyage. Barrels $5,00. Salt five hundred bushels at 


” 


$2.20 per Hhd. Bait $500, Victualling the vessel $300. * 
“1. When yon have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2989 


from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be. 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American Vessel in 


' these respects, explain what the difference is, and the reason for it. The 
cost of the Vessel is not more than one half as much,and the outfits are 


- not much more than half as much as our Vessels, 


22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 


~the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebee, or 


Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? I own fishermen and fitted out fishermen, and have been 


- fishing myself for 20 years more or less. The principal fishing in the 
_ provinces is Cod fish & Mackerel, and the greatest portion taken ou the 


Banks. 


23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Cod & Mackerel. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 


_ 1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are to be thrown open to 


American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the catch 
in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant from the 
shore ; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
‘and what is the value? They do not. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? 


| If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 


not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. We sometimes procure barrels and bait and fresh 
provisions in Canso and many ports on Prince Edwards Island and at 
the Chaleurs. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the Brit. 
ish North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what Is the pro- 

‘portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 


- amount taken outside of the three-mile limit?) Five bundred Vessels, 


average Value $7,000 each; seven eighths without the three-mile limit, 
28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish withiu three marine miles 
of the coast: whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it con- 
sist? None nee 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack . 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, what 


"are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 


» in the aggregate? None at all 
-_ 30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 


_ €oncerned, mere, or quite as, beneficial to t 


he people of the British 


a , 
: ; | 
va 


2990 AWARD OF THF FISHERY COMMISSION. 


North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? I 
think it is more 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

32, For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat ‘ 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. Yes 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the 
United States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to 
be made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. : 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it, 
I think it is of a great deal more value to the Province than it is to the 
American fishermen, and eventually will be a great injury to the inter- 
est of the American fishermen. 

L G. CRANE, 


_ Keeper Seguin Light Maine 


Sworn to before me this 2d day of July, 1873 
E. S J NEALLEY, 


Collector. 
NO. °D, 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | i | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
iia TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Henry E. Willard—35 years old—Reside in Cape Elizabeth. 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? I have been a fisherman for twenty- 
four years—master of a fishing vessel 9 years. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
Who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If 
So, please give some such name. Geo W. Willard, Caleb Willard, John 
I. Lovitt Morris Cobb, Isaac Cobb, & others + 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, | 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have exainined articles 18 & 22 of the “« treaty of Washington ” 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially _ 
those Which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Cod & Haddock, Mackra 
Pollock Herring, Pohagen, Halibut &e. — 
~~ 


ad 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2991 


6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872 inelu- 
sive? If you can do this, please do so; and if not, please state where that 
information can be procured. Cannot state. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
| under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
| in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. All the kinds named in answer to question 5, which may be 
made of great value to the Canadian fishermen, as they are now to 
American fishermen. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown. open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? I cannot say. ‘ 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and, if so, to what extent and value?) They do obtain con- 
siderable bait in the waters of this State. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in 
being able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack 
and cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other re- 
striction than that contained in the Treaty of Washington? Will de- 
pend on what extent the Canadian fishermen may pursue the fishing 
business in our waters. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore tisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen ; and, if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? Will open a competition for winter and early fishing 
for supplying American markets. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Cannot tell. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? Not one-fourth are caught in-shore. Chiefly caught out-side 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackrel—sometimes Herrings 

15. If you state that the in-shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion 1s taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? Not one-fourth of the mackerel caught are taken in- 
shore. Chiefly taken out side. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the tn-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 

‘They are taken chiefly out side the in-shore limits—on the banks and in 
‘ the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. a ; 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in colonial in-shore waters? I should think no material injury. 
18, Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing jn- 

shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
“quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone f Yes for 
they rely chiefly on the bait thrown over by American fishermen. _— = 
? > 19. Whatisthe best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 


aaire 


-- 
Bein 5 


9992 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, 
and what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British 
Provinces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of 
the shore? Porgies are used chiefly for Mackrel Bait & Porgies are 
taken on the Coast of Maine almost exclusively within three miles of 
the Shore. 

20, Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning 
a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. For a season—of say three trips—Mackrel Fishing— 
(two months to atrip.) Will cost $2,500, for Bait, Salt & Provisions: 
& Eleven men at $40 per month—6 mos—$2,640 in addition—Seins, 
lines, Hooks &ce., $1,500.—Making $6,640 for 45 ton vessel costing $9,000 
—or $2,210 per trip, without reconing cost of Vessel. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far \ 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. 
Canadian Vessels are built of Soft woods & cheaply fitted & cannot 
cost I think, much more than half as much as American fishermen—do 
not provision as expensively as American fishing Vessels. . 

_ 22, Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? Am acquainted with Nova Scotia & Prince Edwards Island 
fisheries—have fished there for four seasons. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackrel Herring, Pollock, Cod & Hake. 

24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. Cannot say. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and whatis the value? Occasionally Herring for Codfishing— perhaps 
valued at 10% a season for each vessel. ; 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports and to what extent ? And, if that is the case, is it not 
an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-vessels 
of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season? 
Exptain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that § 
advantage. American fishermen do procure the-above supplies, at Gut 
Canso, ( harlottetown P. E. I. Pictou N.S. Port-Hood—& some other 
or Si & this trade must be of considerable value to those Dominion 

“i. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engaged in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the Brit- 
ish North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2993 


_ and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 

engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of tish are taken there 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, arid what is the pro. 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? Should think that 175 to 200 
Vessels ranging at45 to 50 tons, averaging eleven men each, goannualley 
to the British Provinces for Mackrel & will average, I should think, 180 
Bbls Mackrel each for the seasons catch—of which, more than } are 
taken out side of the “ three-mile-limit.” 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast ; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist ? 
I should think it more profitable for a vessel not to go within three miles 
of the shore—more fish would be taken, but the restriction is an annoy- 
ance. 
| 29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
_. ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
-» inthe aggregate? Ido not think the gain of any great advantage to 

American Fishermen. 
- $80. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as'to the people of the United States? I know 


_ that during the Reciprocity treaty, that several persons—citizens in the 


Gut o Canso (Charlottetown Port Hood) & other places got wealthy 
out of American fishing trade. & since its repeal those persons have 
lost all that trade—which I have no doubt this treaty will restore in a 
measure. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Cannot 

32. For all No.1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. - the only foreign market for Canadians ee 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 


them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 
H E WILLARD 


_ I solemnly and truly swear that the foregoing statements by me sub- 
scribed are true according to my best knowledge and belief. So help me 


is H E WILLARD 


is sixteenth day of June A. D, 1873, - 
Sworn before me this sixtee y ae ee ee 


Dep. Collector of Customs. 
188 F 


2994 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 6. 
[ CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PROPOUND- 
ED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 


1. Whatis your name and age, and in what town and State do you re- 
side? Name Albert T Trufant Age, 39 years State of Maine Town 
of Harpswell : ; 

Q. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
cateb of the different kinds of fish? I have been in the Business of By- 
ing & Cureing Fish for the last 13 years and have been in Gulf of St 
Lawrence a Fishing 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. 

4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872 inclu- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisher: 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state 
ee in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 

ind. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? 

9. DoCanadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of your 
State? And if so, to what extent and value? they do but I cannot 
state to What extent . 

10, What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? 

11, Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? I think it will as they can Bring their Fish in Free of 
Duty and they can Fit & have their Vessels at Less Cost than we can 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 


coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- . 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- | _ 


eries ? 


} 


e 


% 


* 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2995 


14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? for mackerel 

15. If you state that the in-shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? in My Opinion their is not one Eight taken within the Shore 
Limmits of Three Miles. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? they are 

17. Are colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in colonial in-shore waters? they are not 

18. Are not more fish caught by colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? they are 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 


what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 


inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Manhaden and I should Say that Seven Eights are taken within 
three Miles of the Shore as to the Value I cannot State bat it is of 
considerable value as it is the Prinsable Bait used for Mackerel 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
‘make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. the Prinsaple Class of Fishing presude from Maine is 


_ the Cod Mackerel Fishery the relative cost of Fitting for Cod Fishing 


is from 1 to 3,000 as to sise of Vessel and the length of the time 
occupide is from 4 to 12 Weeks and the Principle Cost is Provisions 


i Salt & Bait As for Mackerel Fishing it Cost less than for Cod Fishing 


to Fit the Vessells and their everage length of time to complete a 
-voyge is from 8 to 12 Weeks the Cost for Fitting for a Mackerel voyge 
is from 800 to 2000 as to beam & sise of Vessel. 


(21, When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 


same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so fae 
as you are able to doso. If youstate that there is any difference betweem 
the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these 
Tespects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. As for 


_ Fitting and Manning Vessells from the Provinces they can be Fitted & 


ran with a less cost than from the States in the first place there ts no 
los’ of time as it takes from 1 to 2 Weeks each way to get to the 
Fishing Grounds and they can build their Vessells ata less cost than 
' from the States as timber and all Material is Cheaper and also labor 
and they can presue the Fishing Business at a less cost than the Ves- 
sells from the States in every respect. : ; 

_ 22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, 
with the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Que- 


bee, or Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which 


of these fisheries ? ; 
23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 


2996 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington ? Cod & Mackerel 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? They do Procure Bait sometimes within 3 
Miles of the Shore but the Value is but of little importance as it is 
Mostley Herring Fish and of but little Value except for Bait 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ? 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is 
it not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing © 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- | 
value of that advantage. They do Procure suplies and also Ice, Salt | 
Barrells &c and it is of great advantage to the Provinces to Sell to the | 
American Fishing Vessels they Buy in evry Harbor of any note in the | 
Dominion of Novascotia Prince Edwards Island Cape Briton & the | 
North Shore of the Gulf of Lower Canada I canot State the Vallue | 
but it must be a Large Amount 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- | 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 
British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both | 
without and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels | 
are so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number | 
of men employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken 
there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is 
the proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount — 
of such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the «| 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? I cannot State What — 
Number of Vessels ar yearley engaged in the Fisherey of the British | 
Provinces but should from 2 to 300 and they are Mostly Fishing for Cod 
& Mackerel the everage Crews Consist from 7 to 12 or 15 Men as to sise _ 
of Vessels and I should say that but one eight of the Fish are caught | 
within the 3 Miles limets of the Shore | 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to | 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles _ 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it consist? _ 
I should say that I do not consider 10 per cent is added to the privalige 
of Fishing within the 3 Miles limets and that consist of Mackerel & 
Bait taken within the limets 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, ‘| 
what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- | 
nually, in the aggregate ? 

30, Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? [. 
should consider it of More advantage to the Provinces as regards the 
Fishing interest than to the United States ' ; 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2997 


, 31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat her- 
ring, and for all No, 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the ouly 
agen it does 

33. you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the Uni 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, hiak are to a eaae 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 

_ made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them an- 
- nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

___-35. The object of these inquiries is'to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
_ Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to the 


r~ 


net DR Oe Fe Foe, tae Fe fee 


—t - 


United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject which 


_ you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state 


it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 


ALBERT T. TRUFANT. 
Attest: STEPHEN PURINTON. 


_ Personally appeared the within named Albert T. Trufant & mad 

oath that the within instrument by him signed is true. Before me, 

STEPHEN PURINTON, 
Justice of the Peace. 


No. 7. 
4 | CONFIDENTIAL. | 
“QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PROPOUND- 
ED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 


I, Enoch G, Willard make answer to the several questions propound- 
ed to me on behalf of the United States, as follows. 

1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Enoch G. Willard,—reside in Portland, Maine—am 50 years old. 
_ 2, What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with the 
~ American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
 eatch of the different kinds of fish? I have been in the business of bay- 
ing and selling fish for over 20 years, and furnishing supplies and outfits 
for fishermen, and have been an importer and dealer in Salt, Par- 
chased over $400,000 worth of fish last year. 

_. 8. Can you give.the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information . If 
so, please give some such name. S. B. Chase of the house of Dana, & 
©o. George Trefetheren, Henry Trefetheren, Jobn Conley, Emery 


Fe - Cushing, A. G. Sterling, Geo. F. Lovett and others. 


4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United 


|\\aae ates, known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will 
| You examine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so. 
_ have examined articles 18 to 22 inclusive of the Treaty. ; 
5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 


provisions of the Treaty of Washington. Cod, hake, haddock, macke- 
rel herring, porgies, are the principal. 


2998 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inelu- 
sive? If you can do this, please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. The kinds are stated in my last an- 
swer. The value of the fish purchased at this port, including cod-liver 
oil is about $2,200,000. Of the fish purchased here probably not one 
twentieth part are caught on that part of the Canadian coast thrown 
open by the treaty,—but what portion of the nineteenth-twentieths not so 
caught are taken upon the coast of this State, I am not able to state 
with anything like accuracy, nor do I know who can—probably one- 
half. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
It is not within my power to give any definite answer or answers that I 
should feel certain about; to the first question I will state the kinds of 
fish caught on the coast of Maine which by the treaty will be open to 
the Canadian fishermen. 1. Mackerel—this fishery is large and valu- 
able, and may be made so to the Dominion fishermen if they choose to 
avail themselves of the opportunities offered. These fish are taken on 
the coast of Maine before they reach the coast to the eastward and are 
sent to the Southern markets. It is now a valuable fishery to the Maine 
fishermen, and will be opened to Dominion use. 2. The herring fishery 
is large and important—especially on the Eastern coast. 3. The pogie 
fishery is very large. The most important district on the entire coast is 
Maine. The pogie taken here is fatter than any other and afford more 
oil. When the fishery is thrown open under the Treaty the Dominion 
fishermen will be at liberty to take pogies upon the coast of this State 
and enter into a large and profitable trade. Also to catch (especially in 
the winter) cod and other fish for sale fresh in the American markets 
in competition with American fishermen, and to catch mackerel early 
before they reach the Dominion waters, thus affording employment to 
the vessels and fishermen of the Provinces at times when there is none 
upon their own coast. : 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? Cannot say. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State; and, if so, to what extent and value? A considerable 
amount of bait is supplied from this State to Canadian fishermen; can’t 
say how much. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without'‘any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? Cannot say. It will 
depend upon the enterprise of the fishermen. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
erles by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? Undoubtedly to some extent. There will be sharp 
competition in winter for our markets for fresh fish, and for mackerel 
early in the season. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 


_—~ 


j 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2999 


fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 

number of men employed upon them? Don’t know. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con. 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
me? More than nine tenths—perhaps nineteen-twentieths are out- 
side. 

14, For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel chiefly—Some herring. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? Not over one fourth are taken within the inshore limits—three 
fourths or more outside. ; 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
‘limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Guif of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes. More than three-fourths. Mackerel in the Gulph of St. 
Lawrence are usually found on the Banks. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? I think not. ‘ 

18, Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 

- quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Practical 

fishermen can answer better than I. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 

_ inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Pogie. Nearly all the mackerel bait is taken on the coast of 
Maine within three miles of the shore. 

20. Piease state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 

make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 

tothe home port. A vessel of 60 tons costs $2,500 to 3,0003 per an- 

num, for fitting, farnishing &c., and makes usually three cruises a 
ear. 

4 21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 

same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 

- from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far as 
you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference between 

the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these 

b respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. The _ 

of fitting out, &c., in the Dominion is ngt so large as in the | sak 

States. Cannot state the precise difference. Our fishermen ahs y 

consider the difference I think to be not less than Zo per cent, In favor 

of pbe Dominion. Reasons our vessels cost more—cost more to supply 

and wages are less. ; Per 
=. 22. ar you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, 
or Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which 1 
these fisheries? I am as a fish dealer as before stated with most ora 
_of those fisheries. 


Sans 


~ 


tune 


3000 AWARD (F THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


” 


93. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel, herring and pollock. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. I have not the in- 
formation at hand that would enable me to state with accuracy. The 
catch in outside waters is of many times the value of the catch inside 
as before stated. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? They do sometimes, but not to a large extent. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And if that is the case, is it not 
an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-vessels of 
the United States in their neighborhood during the season? Explain 
why it is so, and estimate, if yon can, the money-value of that advan 
tage. They do, and will more largely when the Treaty takes effect 
Will also buy fish by the cargo and in smaller quantity. It is a valua 
ble trade to the Provinces 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sel yearly engaged in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without and within the 
three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so engaged, what 
is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men employed aa- 
nually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, what is the 
annual value of all the fish so caught, and. what is the proportion, or 
probable proportion, in yourjudgment, of the amount of such catch taken 
within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount taken out- 
side of the three-mile limit? I have already stated the sorts of fish taken, 
those taken within the three mile limit would not be one tenth of all 
taken in those waters. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added: to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast ; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist ? 
Only for two months in a year is there any advantage, and thisis mainly 
confined to catching the per cent of Mackerel before stated. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, whichwere not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? American fishermen do not repack fish until they 
eee home—the other rights except transhipping cargos are of no 
“alue, 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more or quite as beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? Yes. I 
have no doubt of it a large portion of fishermen and fish dealers believe 
that without the repeal of the duty the former would gain as much as 
the latter, but with the repeal, the opinion is nearly if not quite univer- 


sal among intelligent and practical men that the balance of gain, if any, 
18 with the people of the Provinces. 


2 + ar 
{= ‘bye aia . 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3001 


31..What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Cannot 
say. : 

32. For all No.1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. Yes, the only market foreign to the Provinces. 

| 33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the 

| United States on fish and fish oil imported from Canada, which are to 

be made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1572, inclusive. 

Dont know. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to made 
_ free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. ; 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous qnestiqns, 
please state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect 
of it. 

I do solemnly, sincerely & truly swear that the foregoing Statements 
Aa laeg & correct to the best of my knowledge & belief. So help me 

od. 


E G. WILLARD 
Sworn to before me 
MN RICH Dep. Collector of Customs (SEAL.) ~ 


June 2, 72 
No. 8. 
[| CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE_ PRO. 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Geo Trefethen, age forty-three. Portland Maine . 
2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value ot the 
catch of the different kinds of tish? I am a wholesale dealer in Dry & 
Pickled have been in the business twentyone years in Portland previ- 
ous to which worked at curing fish from my youth up. Am au owner 
in Six fishing Schoones and have owned more or less for twenty years, 
' my father has been in the business sixty years . 
_ 3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ‘ if 
80, please give some such name. W.S. Dana, A. G. Sterling, C & H 
- Trefethen E.G. Willard and many others asians 
4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed, Will you ex- 
: amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I, 


3002 © AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel Codfish’ Pollock 
Hake Haddock & Porgies 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, in- 


elusive? If you can do this please do so; and, if not, please state: 


where that information can be procured. I cannot state definately, and 
do not know where the information can be obtained 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
I think the most valuable fisheries to be thrown open by the Treaty is 
the Porgie, which I should estimate to be worth a Million Dollars to the 
State of Maine And which we have now entirely as the fish follow the 
coast and are taken almost wholly within the three mile limit the next 
in importance is the Mackerel, which perhaps is realy of more value 
but is not confined to the shore so closely, a large portion being taken 
outside the limit Codfish are mostly taken outside the three miles on our 
coast. : 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? I cannot State 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State ; and if so, to what extent and value? They do, but cannot 
state to what amount. Porgies for Mackerel Bait has been quite largely 
shipped to N.S. from this State 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? I cannot tell. It will be 
hol i g entirely to how far they avail themselves of the priviledges opened 

o them 

11, Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen ; and if so, in what manner, and to what ex- 
tent annually? If they should take advantage of our winter fishing, I 
think that they injure our fishermen by over stocking our markets with 
fresh fish, and thus reduce the price 
_ 12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? I do not know, but think it is 
very limited at present, confined to a few Mackerel fishermen in fall of 

year 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? All of the Cod are taken oft shore and a large proportion of the 
Mackerel, say three quarters to seven eights. Herring are mostly taken 
In shore, also Pollock 
i414, For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore ‘fisheries? Mackerel principly, and will for Herring after the 
treaty takes effect x 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 


i e 
roe 4 ; : 
i: 

5 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8003 


chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? I should say three quarters to Seven eights outside and 
one eights to a garter in shore 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes in the summer, say from June 1st to Sept Ist our fishermen 
usualy do better off shore, but in the fall after the Ist of Sept the Mack- 
erel pete’ in shore, and the weather being rough it is safer to be 

_ near a harbor 
_17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters?. I should say not, except in rare 
instances 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Ido not 
know. 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Porgies is the best bait for Mackerel, and is taken only on the 
coast of Maine and Massachusetts, and is all taken within three miles 
of the shore. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning 
a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail, the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 

to the home port. For Bank cod fisheries we use vessels of about 60 
_ tons costing from seven to ten thousand dollars, we usually fit and pro- 
'yision them for a voyage of two to four months with a crew of ten men. 
1st we take 120 to 140 hhds Salt cost 300% Bait 40 Bris. Clams, 320% 
Nets lines & Hooks 180% Provisions 5008 total $1300,—to which we add 
if they fish in dories which the most of the fishermen do late years 
3008 for dories total 16008. this for the first or spring cruise, if #1600 
successfull usualy last two months the second cruise will cost less, 
say about 10008 for two months if codfishing. if for mackerel in $1000 
Bay St. Lawrence 800%. third cruise for Mackerel usualy cost #600 
600%. Therefore if the vessel makes two Cod fish cruises and one 
Mackerel it will cost about 32008 if One Codfish and two Mack- $5200 
- erel 3000% in rare instances we get a fourth trip, but as often only two. 
_ 21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward |sland, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost ot the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is, and the reason for it. I 
cannot State what it costs to fit out a vessel from the Provences, but 
have always understood that it cost them much less. in the first vary 
: they have cheeper vessels. And not so well provided and | aad rages or 
_ they are nearer home, and do not require so extensive an outtit. 
: the men own and run their vessels, and are satisfied With poke ota 
_~ Yisions than our people are, and many articles cost less in Nova Scotia 


8004 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


than in the States, vessels can be built for less, because wood and iron 
is cheeper. Salt is cheeper than any other articles 

92, Are you acquainted, and for how long and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? only as a dealer and buyer of their fish 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are to 
be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the Treaty 
of Washington? Herring, Mackerel, Cod, &c. 

°4, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen ; also, the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are no more than three miles dis- 
tant from the shore; please state these facts in detail. I do not know. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? they do. Herring princapally for winter 
fishing which they purchase of the inhabitants and will continue to pur- 
chase, as the inhabitants can sell for less than our fishermen can catch 
them Idonot know the amount, but should estimate it at ten thou- 
sand dollars or more 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. they do to some extent in Halifax, N. S., 
Port Mulgrave & Port Hood, C. B., Charlotte town & Georgetown, 
P. E. I., and other Ports of less note, and will after the Treaty takes 
effect to a large extent. It must be a decided advantage to people of 
those Ports to be able to supply our vessels with Fresh Provisions 
Potatoes &c and I know that they felt it to be asad blow to them 
when the former Treaty was abrogated, and I have been solicited by 
parties in trade at Halifax, Port Mulgrave and Charlotte Town to send 
mny vessels to them for supplies, and have done So 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the Brit- 
ish North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? I have no statistics, of the above, 
but should estimate the number to.be Five or Six hundred Valued at 
some Two hundred and fifty Thousand dollars, manned by some five or 
Six thousand men, Cod and Mackerel, should estimate the value at three 
M illion Dollars in round num bers, and should estimate the amount taken 
inshore or within three miles at not more than ten per cent. or three 
hundred thousand, and I do not believe that it will exceed that amount 
after the Treaty takes effect. 

28. What per@entage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine 


SUE 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3005 


miles of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it 
consist? Ido not think that I would pay one-tenth of One per cent 
for the privilege, in fact all the benefit that any vessel that I own in 
would derive, would be in being allowed to fish for about a month inside 
the limit for Mackerel When the Dominion Govt granted permits to 
fish inside the three mile limit to our fishermen, by the payment of fifty 
dollars for a vessel, some of our fishermen, payd that amount for the 
privilege, but when the next year the Dominion Govt raised the amount 
to One hundred Dollars, very few if any, would pay it, none that I was 
interested did. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
_are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? None for the right to land and dry their nets and 
cure fish ; they may gain something in rights to land and transship 

Cargoes but I think the benifits to the people, where they are landed 

or transshipped would be fully equal to the benifit we derive. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses 
are concerned, more or quite as beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States! 1, 
think it is decidedly in favor of of the People of Provinces, the right 
to bring their fish to our market free of Duty is worth more to them 
than all they give is worth to us. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
‘descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States! I do 

_ not know. 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 

only market? It does, and also a large part of the Large Codfish. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 

_ States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 

_ free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 

_ annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive I do not 

_ know. 

84. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 

- fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which dre to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 

and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Ido not know, — . 

_ 35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights ia 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
_ Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 

_ for the rights'in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
_ the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
' which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
‘state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of It. 
I will state in this connection that I have in my employ a number of 
_ natives of Nova Scotia, who now say they shall return to N.S. as by 

_ the treaty, and with the privilege of sending their fish to our market 

_ free, they can prosecute the business more profitably there than here. 

— Isolemnly, sincerely & truly swear that the foregoing yoga tag 

; _ are true & correct to the best of my knowledge & belief. So help me 


_ GEORGE TREFETHEN. 


___ Sworn before me this 12th day June 1873 ¢ (Seal.) 
3 M N RICH Dep. Collector. 


Wr wine 


a" 


3006 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 9. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE _ PRO.- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? John Conley. Portland, Me. age, 69 years. 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? I have been in the Fish and Oil busi- 
ness for the last thirty years. 

3. Can you give the namesof other persons in your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similarinformation? If so, 
please give some such name. E. G. Willard; Geo. Trefethen & Co.; 
Henry Trefethen & Sons; Emery Cushing; A. G. Sterling & Co. 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provision of the Treaty of Washington? Cod; Hake; Cusk; Haddock ; 
Mackerel ; Pollock ; Herring ; Menhaden, or porgies are the principal 
kinds. 


6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 


annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inclu- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. The kinds of Fish are as above stated. 
The value of fish and fish-oil is about two million dollars ($2000.000.) for 
Portland sales. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
I cannot state the amount Mackerel in large quantities and value. 
also Codfish; Hake, Haddock, Pollock, Herring & Pogies will be of great 
importance and profit to the Canadian fishermen. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
oft the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? I eannot Say. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They procure large 
quantities of bait and supplies; value not known. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish ou the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? I cannot say, but think 
it very valuable. ; 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause avy detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our oyn fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? I do not think it will, to any great extent but they 


eid 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3007 


will have a chance to compete with our winter fishin 
valuable. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? I do not know. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? About three quarters of the fishing is deep-sea fishing. 

14, For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel and herring, principally. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in- 
shore limits? Should think that less than one fourth part are taken 
within the in-shore limits. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
es on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 

annot say. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fisher. 
men to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? Do not think they are. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Cannot 
say, but should think there would be. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 

taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, 
and what is the annual value to the United States, or-to the British 
Provinces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of 
the shore? The best bait is pogies; nearly all the mackerel bait is 
taken on the coast of Maine and within three miles of the shore. 
_ 20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning 
a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Salt, Lines, Provisions, etc. varying from One thou- 
sand (1000) dollars to three thousand (3000) dollars. They usually make 
from two to three trips per year. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there Is any difference be- 
‘tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the -\merican vessel in 
in these respects, explain what the difference Is and the reason for it. 
Should think the cost of the Canadian would be much less than the 

| American, — 
22, Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
_ Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 

fisheries? I have been acquainted with the Nova Scotia and New 
_ Brunswick fisheries for about twenty years. +7 

_ 23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those qoasts which are 


g, which is very 


3008 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Cod and Pollock principally. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. Do not know. 

25, Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Should think not to any great extent or value. © 

°6. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of | 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, | 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. They do purchase supplies in most all the 
ports on the fishing coast, and is consequently of advantage to the in- 
habitants of the different ports. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the Brit- 
ish North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? Cannot state how many 
vessels are employed or the amount of fish taken. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived, and in what does it consist? 
Only a small part of the fish are taken within three miles of the coast, 
and the profit not large compared with the outside fishery. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, 
what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- 
nually, in the aggregate? Do not think they do, to any great extent. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? I consider 
the advantage fully equal and beneficial. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Cannot 
say. 
32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat ‘ 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the | 
only market. I think it does to a large extent. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United — 
States on fish aud fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made — 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state _ 


ite aunually, and by elasses, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Cannot 
state. | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3009 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canad. 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United Staten Lars ci 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, 

_ please state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in re- 
spect of it? ‘ 


_ Isolmnly sincerely & truly swear that the foregoing Statements are 
frne & correct to the best of my knowledge & belief—so help me 


7, 

i ‘ JOHN CONLEY 

____ Sworn to before me this 14th day June 1873 

ag M N RICH 

ne Dep Collector. (SEAL.) 

is | 

if iq No. 10. 

ee [CONFIDENTIAL. } 

UESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 
“POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? O. B. Whitten; 34 Portland Maine 
_ 2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and thé value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been in the fish business ten 
_ ~years 
_ 3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ? If 
80, please give some such name. T.C. Lewis Abel Chase C. M. Trefe- 
than R. T. Sterling 
_ 4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex. 
‘amine articles 18 to 22, inclusive, and state that you have done so? 
_ Have examined the articles referred to above 
_ 5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
_ those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian tishermen ander the 
_ provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Cod—Haddoek Pollock Hake 
_ Mackerel Herring and Pohagen 
_ 6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantites*of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, incla- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
_ that information can be procured. Unable to state 
~ °7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
~ American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 


3010. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


S. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
olf the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? Do not know 

9, Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters ot 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? A very large pro- 
portion of the bait used by the Canadian mackerel fishermen is taken 
from the warters of this State 

10. Whatis the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? Cannot say 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? As the Canadian fishermen can build fitt and man 
their vessells at an exceedingly less cost than American it would be a 
detriment to American fisheries because they could not compete with 
them 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Do not know 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion consists 
of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fisheries ? 
Most of the large fishing vessels of this State pursue the deep sea fishing 
off the Coast of British North American Provinces for nearly five months 
and then a large proportion of the same vessels pursue the mackerel 
fishing 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? Should judge that seven eighths of all the mackerel 
caught are taken out side of the in-shore limits 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel gene- 
rally found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes ‘ - 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? It requires 
i continual throwing of bait to catch mackerel with a hook conse- 
quently vessels in the fleet do better than they would by fishing alone 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it princi- 
pally taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, 
and what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British 
Provinces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of 
the shore ? Pohagen—and all taken in American waters and most of 
it within three miles of the shore 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- ; 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3011 


ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go 
to make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of return. 
ing to the home port. It will cost to build and fit out a vessel of 100 
tons for cod-fishing to be absent the average time—say three months 
$12000—For mackerel fishing $11550 . 


Cod fishing Cost of Vessel 9500 | Mackerel fishing, cost of Vessel 9500 
“6 ss ‘s  “ Provisions 1200 c us * Provisions 000 
‘“ be ss. © Salt 450 e oe ote Balt 1 
Ss i ‘« «© Dories 3950 es fe Ata UO ats 00 
ss as Set Bat 500 ee oy ge “  ** Barrels nw 

$12000 | $115.50 


21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is, and the reason for it. 
Should say that Canadian vessells can be built and fitted for nearly one 
half less than American—umaterial for building is less—They use a 
poorer class of vessels and provision them at a very small expense 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of 
_ these fisheries? Acquainted with the cod and mackerel fisheries— 

nearly ten years both curing cod-fish and inspecting mackerel 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel mostly 

24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
_ 1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open to 
_ American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the cateh 
_ in the adjacent waters, which are more than three miles distant from 
’ the shore. Please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Sometimes the American fishermen take bait 
within three miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada but to a very 
small extent . 
_ 26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
‘and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries 7 If 
80, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, Is It 
- not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
sels.of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. They do purchase supplies in the ports of the Do- 
Minion of Canada—American fishermen frequently land their cargo of 
mackerel and ship them to American ports—then they are obliged to 
‘get an entire outfit, and it is a great advantage to have the trade of the 
fishing-vessels - Z hs ads 
27. Have you any knowledge of how many U nited States fishing-ves- 
‘sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
z and within the three-mile limit? If so, state bow many vessels are 80 
gaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 


4 


3012 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual yalue of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of th 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit ? 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine 
miles of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it 
consist? 

29, Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, what _ 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? They do not 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? A 
far greater benefit to the people of British North American Provinces 
than to the people of the United States 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. Yes 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them an- 
nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to the 
United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject which 
you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state 
it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 

I solmnly sincerely & truly swear that the foregoing statements 
were & correct to the best of my knowledge & belief. So help me 

70d, 
O. B. WHITEN 

Sworn to hefore 

M N RICH 
Dep Collector 


| CONFIDENTIAL. ] 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
Eee TO S B CHASE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


1, What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you ; 
reside? Stephen B Chase reside in Portland Main am 67 years old 


No. 11. P 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3013 


2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
‘eatch of the different kinds of fish? I have been in the buisuess of re- 
ceiving and Delvering fish for the last twentytive years 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborbood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. E G Willard George Trefetherin Henry 


_ Trefetherin John Conley Emery Cushing A G Sterling George F Lovett. 


4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
pene articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 

ave 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Cod Hake, Cusk Haddock 
Mackerel Herring Pogies are the principle 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inclu- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. The kinds are statied in my last an- 
swer. The value of Fish purchase including Cod Liver Oil and the Oil 
manufactured from Porgies is from $1800,000 to &2,000000. ' 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
Cannot give any answer to the first part of questions, the kindsof Fish 
caught on the coast of Maine which by the Treaty will be opened to the 
Cannadin Fisherman, 1st, Mackererll, which is large & valuable and may 
be maid so to the fishermen of the Provinces if they choose to make them 
so, as they are taken earley in the season on our southern Cost and then 
work east until Fall when they reach the English waters, this branch of 
the fishing interest is large and vauable to Maine Fisherman, and will be 


open to Dominion fishermen 2d The Herring fishery is large and im- 


portant especially on the Eastern Coast 3d the pogie fishery is large 
and important, especscaly to Maine, and by the treaty this branchis trown 
open to the Dominion Fishermen and will open to them a large and pro- 
fitable buisness to them if they choose to themselves of it also the Fresh 
Fish buisness willbe thrown open to them in the Winter season affording 
emploument to men & vessels during the time they cannot be so em- 
ploye on their coast 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


- off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 


of Washington? Cannot say sane 
9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? A large amount of 
Baits is supplied to Canadien Fisberman cant say how much 
10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 


that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? Cannot say 


11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
-eause any detriment or hinderauce to the profitable pursuit of errs fish- 
-eries by our own fishermen; and if so, 1n what manner, and to what ex- 


tent annually? This will depend very much on the enterpris of the 
Ps 


——- > ht . 


3014 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Canadin Fisherman, as they will have a chance to competute for the win- 
ter fishing & earley mackerel Fishing 
12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 


fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the - 


number of men employed upon them? Do not know 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? More than threeqaurters perhaps Nine tenths are out side 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in shore fisheries? Mackerel & Herring 

15. If you state that the in-shore fisheries arepursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? Should think one fourth part are taken within in shore limits 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; aud in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 
Cannot say 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish inColonial in-shore waters? 1 think not 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Cannot 
say 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States,.or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Pogies, nearly all the Mackerel Bait is taken on the coast of 
Maine and within three miles of shore 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. As near as I can ascertain from enquirey think the 
expence will will be from $2000 to $3000, and usualy make three cruses 
a year 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Sale questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are abletodoso. If you state that there is any difference between 
the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these 
respects, explain what the difference is and the reason forit. Cannot tell 

+2. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, 
With the fisheries ou the coast of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, 
or Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of 
these fisheries ? I am with the Nova Scotia and New Brunswic 

~3. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Cod and Pollock and salmon. 

~1. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
from 1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown 
open to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value 


5 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3015 


of the catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles 
distant from the shore; please state these facts in detail. do pot know 
25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada; if 80, to what extent 
and what is the value 2 they do sometimes but to small extent. 
26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ; if 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- vessels 
of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season ? 
Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that 
advantage.—They do and will more largely when the treaty takes ef- 
fect, and will prove a valuable trade to the Province 
27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces (excluding Newfoundland) both without and 
within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so en- 
gaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the propor- 
tion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? I have no knowledge of the 
Number of Vessels employed or how many fish taken 
28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist? 
onley for a short time in the fall, and is mainly confined the per cent. of 
mackerel before stated 
29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry netsand cure fish, or to repack them, 
or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what are 
those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, in 
the aggregate? Americans do not repack fish until they arrive home 
the other rights excepting transshipping cargo is of no value 
30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? I have no 
doubt of it and in conversation with both class of Fisherman the Do- 
minion Fishermen are better satisfied than our own with the Treaty 
according to there own statements ie ; 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States! Cannot 
35. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. Yes. en , United 
- 33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the ate 
‘States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state them 


annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Do not know 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 


_ free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 


nd by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 


Bee | 
3016 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 

I solmnly sincerely and truly swear that the foregoing statements 
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge & belief. So help me God. 

STEPHEN B CHASE 


Sworn before me this 13th day of June 1873 
M N RICH, 
Dep. Collector. 


No. 12. 
[ CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 
POUNDED TO , ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 


I, Marshall N. Rich, make the following answers to the several ques- 
tions propounded to me, respecting the fisheries on behalf of the U.S: 

1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Marshall N Rich—reside in Portland Maine—am 42 years of 
_ age. 

2, What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea fisheriee, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? I have been Secretary of the 
Board of Trade of this city for the past ten years—published a commer- 
cial paper for seven years—in which capacities it has engaged much 
of ny time in preparing & collating statistics and trade reports. Ihave 
also been Deputy Collector of Customs for this port for nearly five 
years, and am at this time, 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ? 
If so, please give some such name. W.S. Dana, E. G. Willard, George 
Trefethen, Emery Cushing, Geo. F. Lovett, John Conley & others. 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
kuown as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
oe ees Articles 18 and 22 inclusive of the “Treaty of Wash- 
ington.’ 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Cod, Pollock, Hake, Haddock, 
Mackerel, Herring, & “ Porgies” (chiefly.) 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inclu- 
sive? If you can do this, please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. Of the kinds of fish previously enu- 
merated, including Cod-liver Oil. The value of that purchased in this 
market, is not much short of two and a half million dollars annually, of 
which, probably not one twentieth part are caught on that part of the 


Coast to be thrown open by the “« Treaty.” I cannot state where the in- 
formation asked can be procured. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 5017 


7. If you are able ‘to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
I cannot state with any practical degree of accuracy the amount and 
value of the American fisheries to be open to the Canadian fishermen 
through the provisions of the treaty. The kinds of fish that are caught 
on the Coast of Maine are Mackerel—which is one of tne most valuable 
& successful, especially early in the season before these tisk frequent 
the Coast so-far Eastward as the Canadian shores, and would afford a 
remunerative business for the Canadian fishermen in supplying South. 
ern markets early in the season, before these fish reach the more Eastern 
shores of the British Provinces. The “ Porgie” fishery of Maine is prob. 
ably the next in importance to that of Mackerel—and the most valuable 
of this class, of the whole Atlantic coast, as the yield of oil is mueh 
more abundant & better—than from any other‘source, this would open 
to the Canadian fisherman opportunities for an entirely new & remu- 
nerative business. The Herring fishery is also of considerable importance 
on the eastern shores of Maine. ‘* Winter Cod fishing,” for supplying the 
markets with fresh fish affords a large business to Americau fishermen, 
for which Canadian fishermen could compete under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington. ‘ 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 

_ off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? I cannot answer. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters 
of your State, and if so, to what extent and value? Canadian fishermen 
obtain large supplies of bait in the markets of this State. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be- 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and repack and 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington? This will depend 
largely to what extent the Canadian fishermen may avail themselves of 
the opportunities thus offered. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish. 
eries by our own fishermen ; and if so, in what manner, and to what ex. 
tent annually?) The competition of Canadian fishermen will be likely 
to considerably reduce the profits of our own fishermen, especially tn 
the winter fishing. 

12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them?! Can give no reliable informa. 
tion é 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion ot the in-shore tish- 
eries? Chiefly deep-sea fishing, but a small proportion are in-shore 
fisheries. 

--14, For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? For mackerel chietly. ; 
_. 15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
_ the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? I learn that probably not one quarcer of the mackrel taken by 


3018 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


American fishermen are caught within the in-shore limits, that more 
than three quarters are taken outside. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen oft the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits: and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes—from the best information I have. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonialin-shore waters? Ihave heard Canadian fishermen— 
or coasters say, that it was rather an advantage in the way’of trade—to 
have American fishermen in their waters—than otherwise—farther I can- 
not say. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? I cannot 
say—from personal knowledge, 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Porgies—principally taken within three miles of the shore. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning 
a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail, the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Vessels of 60 to 70 tons costing 8 to 9 thousand 
dollars are the prevailing class of craft employed by the Maine fish- 
ermen and to ‘fit out” for a mackerel cruise—complete ; costs from 
$2,500 to $5,000 per annum and they make three—sometimes four cruises 
a year, 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able todo so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. I 
cannot state the cost of fitting & manning Canadian fishermen—but 
think they must be very much less, as they are not so large & costly 
vessels as those employed by American fishermen, 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries ? Only from such information as I have acquired in my busi- 
ness relations with the American fishermen & dealers and casual con- 
versation with Canadian Coasters, 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel—Pollock, & Herring. 

24. Please State in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1572 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. Iam not able to 
answer intelligably, ; : 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 


> tell, 


_ ae 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3019 


miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If 80, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Have heard that they do occasionally. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports ot 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries! If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it not 
an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing vessels 
of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season ? 
Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that 
advantage. Yes to some extent at Halifax Yarmouth—Cape Breton 
& other places, and is an advantage to the ports of the Dominion. in 
furnishing supplies, &c, 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundiand,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the propor: 
tion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? I cannot say how many’ U. 
S. vessels are yearly engaged or how many men employed—The 
kinds of fish caught is previously stated—the portion caught within 
3 miles of the British coast is not over 10 per cent I think 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived, and in what does it con- 
sist? Perhaps ten per cent, as by such previledges, they can fish to bet- 
ter advantage near the shore for two months in the year. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? The fish caught by our fishermen are not repacked till 
they arrive home. Transhipping cargoes will be of some value. There 
will be no other rights acquired by the treaty that I can now see. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States! I should 


judge the “ Treaty” to be as beneficial to the British North American 


Provinces, in every respect as to the people of the United States—Smoke- 
Houses will be established by American dealers at favorable ports of 
shipment in the British Provinces to secure the advantages of cheaper 
labour. | . 
31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Cannot 


answer, 


32, For all No.1 and No.2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 


- herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 


= 


only market? Yes—so far as my knowledge goes, ; er 
33. If you know what amount of duties Is annually paid to the —_ 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of W ‘ashington, po — 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. canno 


3020 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872 inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 

3ritain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 


I Marshall N. Rich do solmnly—sincerely & truly swear that the fore- 
going statements are true & correct to the best of my knowledge & be- 
lif—So help me God 

MARSHALL N. RICH. 


Sworn before me this 12th day of June 1873 (Seal.) 
D MORTLOR 
Dety Collr, Justice of the Peace 


No. 13. 
[| CONFIDENTIAL. |] 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED ‘tO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Noah Swett—47—Wellfleet Massachusetts. 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been engaged in the mack- 
erel fishery 35 years. 15 years as catcher, 20 years as Inspector. Never 
have visited the Canadian waters. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? 
Have examined the articles mentioned 

5. W hat kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Cod, Mackerel, & Menha- 
den or Pogis are the Principal varieties of great value— 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coasts of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, in- 
clusive ? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. The Reports of the Inspector Gen- 
eral will give the total catch of Mackerel for those years but will include 
the foreign with the home catch, and it will be difficult I think to finda 
““parate statement of each. Am not aware that any public record of 
the catch of Cod on our shores has been kept. 

: ‘ If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. wie | 


under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind 
Supposing that an annual average catch of Mackl—to be 250.000 bar. 
rels in all the New England States at $10 per barrel—the value would be 
—$2.500.000 for such fish alone, the value of the Cod 
Tam not.well acquainted with 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken by 
Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters off 
the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty of 
Washington ? i : 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? I think the Canadian 
fishermen have not only in exceptional cases procurd Bait on our coast. 
but have procured it from second hands. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and care 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? The privilege to prdcare 
bait is valuable. so is the liberty to repack and inspect their mackerel, 
The privilege relating to nets is not worth much to either side. they salt 
their nets and do not dry 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen ; and, if so, in what manner and to what ex- 
tent annually? Our home fleet is already too numerous for the pros- 
perity of the business. If this Treaty causes the Canadian fishery 
largely to increase. the detriment to the Home vessel will be serious on 
acct of the difference in fitting. cost of vessel, Kc enabling them to sell 
under 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats aré engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Am not aware that at present 
there are any to make acct of . 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 


&, Porgy catch. 


coasts of the British N orth American Provinces, what proportion con- 


sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? Very Largely deep sea fishery 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries ?_ Mostly mackerel— 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? My opinion is from what I can learn from what ex- 
perienced persons say that more than ? of the catch has been outside the 


~ 3.mile limit in the Bay of St Lawrence. The American in shore fishery 


is very valuable, especially early & late. for mackerel and fresh fishing 
fall. Winter & spring ; a 
16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 


- fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in sbore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
-found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 


shore? Such are undoubtedly the facts Pie ‘ 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American peers 
‘to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? I look upon it as a very great ad- 
yantage to the Colonist g ; gts 
18. Ate not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing tn- 


3022 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone; It is often 
the case that while fishing in shore the Colonial fishermen ties on to the 
American, so as to take advantage of her bait. to toll mackerel along- 
side 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case, may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? The Porgy is the almost universal bait used. and is found from 
Long Island te the Penobscot River. and is all taken within the limits 
the annual value to one of our fishermen. is from $300 to $500 dollars 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning 
a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home ports For the mackerel Fishery—an average vessel would 


GORD ian se cee ues paged Kies eee ae eaisie wae catia alse ae wine $8000.00 
Fitted with Barrels oe eee PR an eee 450.00 
“ 6 eee eevee oe Ie ce be ae ee eens 150.00 

66 a SPTOVISIONS weg Bea eae eee Seeicteeatatee PP AP Pigs 400.00 

“6 SOS aii cs on gk Peed aioe ie ee Seek 300.00 

6 SO TO DCT 5). is oe ot ek ole eae co eee 3200.00 

: 12.400.00 
MASHO CALIIGR: SOINO le toon ok oa Oe ee WHRitt dete dees 1200.00 
13.600.00 


21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominign of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. The 
American mackerel fleet is a fleet of Yachts calculated for fleetness 
and composed and constructed of the best materials, The Canadian 
fleet is far below the other in material and construction, Many of the 
duties that the American pays are unknown to the Colonist Barrels. 
salt and Provisions are likewise lower and of an inferior quality and 
the habits of living on board are very much in favor of the Colonist. I 
Judge that the inhabitant of the Dominion can furnish and sail his 
Schooner at. } at least less cost than the American 

~4. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, which of these 
fisheries? Have no personal acquaintance, but have often sent vessels 
to those waters. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
J Teaky of Washington? Mackerel & Cod—— 

Me dos State in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
sa ; © 15/2 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
© American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 


> 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3023 


from the shore; please State these facts in detail. For the ten pre. 
ceding years our fishermen from Cape Cod especially have not fre- 
quented to any great extent the Bay of St. Lawrence for years not 
a vessel went there from this town (Wellfleet) Our shore fishery proving 
so much surer and productive than that of the Bay Since seining has 
become so popular Our hook fishermen are turning their attention that 
way. to avoid cruising on the same ground with the seiners 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so. to what extent 
and what is the value?) Am uot aware that they procur bait at all in 
the Canadian Waters 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ive, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ! 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is 
it not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. The Ports in Gut of Canso. Georgetown. 
Charlottetown Malpec & Cascumpec are largely indebted to the Ameri- 
can fishermen for their custom. During the Reciprocity treaty these 
places flourished from the gains derived from that source. Since that 
treaty has been cancelled those same places have suffered severely from 
being unable to furnish supplies to American vessels 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing ves. 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish.are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 


- amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? 


28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? Of course it will be a convenience to fishin shore. When we were 
denied that privilege fishermen kept more at sea, did not frequent the 
harbors so often and employed more time in business. deducting what 
they would catch off shore during the time used in shore, and amt of 
time saved I think the privilege quite valueless. Sia 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, w hat 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? Am not aware that the American will gain any 
valuable right in this way that they do not now possess. 

30; Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States * Phe fisher- 
‘men of the United States are a unit in deciding that the treaty !s against 


them 


31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 


descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 


32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 


Byte, 


3024 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. They do. Fat fish will not keep in warm countries. 


33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 


States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights 
in respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to 
Great Britain by the Treaty of Washington, areor are not a just equiv- 
alent for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty 
to the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of 
it. I can only say that the universal opinion of those engaged in the 
American fisheries both at sea and on shore is that the terms of the 
treaty are decidedly against them, some have gone so far as to predict 
the total ruin of our own fisheries when brought into competition 
with the Dominion fisheries. For the last 25 or 30 years the Yan- 
kee has been training the Colonist his business, actually learning 
him his trade a large proportion of the fishermen of Nova Scotia are 
better acquainted on our shore than on their own. they have among 
them many capable men who have only to fit out their cheap vessels 
cheaply and enter the lists against their trainers and if this is carried to 
the extent that Yankee enterprise would carry it were the position re- 
versed we may expect our business to decline and go into other hands, 
so depressing an effect has this view upon the fisheries of this town that 
already this year we have sold 15 out of a fleet of 75 vessels and added 


none. 
NOAH SWETT. 


Then personally appeared the above named Noah Swett and acknowl- 
edge the foregoing auswers to be the best of his belief correct 
EBENEZER T. ATWOOD 
Justice of the Peace 
WELLFLEET June 17, 1873 


No. 14. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1, What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you re- 
side? Chas. C. Pettingill, Salem, Massachusetts 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been in the Fishing for 25 
years past, most of the time in Gloucester 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
Who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If 
So, please give some such name. Chas A Roper of Salem, Mass 


Bis * sig 


A ail 


Ce 
4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3025 


4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the Unite: 
_ States, known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto eeeeay wil 
you examine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so ¢ 
I have examined said articles ? 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Menhaden, a fish which is 
used principally for Mackerel Bait, and the Provinces depend mainly 

upon us for a supply. in my judgment it is quite a valuable cousidera- 
tion for them 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 

annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inela- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. this information will come to you 
correctly, no doubt. ; 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 

_ American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
_under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 


_ in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 


I think mainly, our advantage from the Treaty must come from the 
Mackerel Fishery. I have always regarded free fishing for mackerel in 


_ the Bay of St. Lawrence quite important to our fishing interest, otlier 


_ fisheries of no particular value to us, which comes from the Treaty, with 
_ free fishing in the Bay, which calls a large number of our vessels there 


|. give them a large amount of trade from our fleet, which they have al- 


ways regarded of much value to them. Add to that their fish free in 
our markets, with the advantage of our Mackerel Bait which comes to 
_ them freely, I am inclined to think nearly if not quite balances their 
. claims against us, 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 


|. by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


_ off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? These facts are contained in Reports which I presume 
will be available 
_9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? largely their Mack- 
_erel Bait comes for our coast. Value could not say 
10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? Could not say ; 
11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
- eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? Not very serious hinderance, 
12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them! — 
13, Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
 eries ? 
_ 14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
_in-shore fisheries? Mackerel chiefly. ‘ 
15. Ifyou state that the in-shore fisheries are pursued wholl yor chiefly 
_ for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 


190 F 


a 


4 


3026 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? I think a very small portion of the catch, the past fifteen years 
has been take within the limits. 1f our fishermen had felt secure and 
free to fish always when three miles from land, their catch from year to 
year would not have been much impaired. The trouble mainly has been, 
a fear to fish within sight of land, whenever any Cutters were in sight, 
knowing there was no redress when taken. here lies the great sacrifice 
which our fishermen have had to bear in the past. : 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by America 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 
Yes. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? I think it has worked for their ad- 
vantage rather than injury 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? this is 
true 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? What we call Pogies, principally take on our coast, cannot 
state quantity & value 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning a 
vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. It cost about $2000. dollars to fit for a three month 


ee” = ee. 


cod fish Trip, and $1500. dollars for a three months mackerel trip, thi 
includes no wages or shares for the crew. 
21. When you have fully answered question 2C, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and mann 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for its 
Shoulld think they could save in fitting for the business at least 25 pe 


ct from our cost. Provisions, salt, cost of vessels, and all labor whet |. 


hired is much less than ours 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, wit 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebee, 0 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of thes 
fisheries? 25 years 


23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which aré | 


to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of th 


Treaty of Washington? Mackerel principally, other fish are littl 
sought for in the limits 


24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say fro 


1554 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown opel 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of th 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distan) 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. v= 


a 


‘ 
ye 
a 

' 


———— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3027 


25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent 
and what is the value? Our Halibut Catcher often go in after fresh 
Bait, but always buy it, which is a good thing for them 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves. 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea. 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. The amount of supplies bought by our Fishermen 
during the year must be quite large, while we had free fishing there, 
think it would be safe to say that the American fleet paid at: P. Ed 
Island, Cansoe, Port Hood & Halifax 250,000 dollas per year for sup- 
plies of all kinds ; 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 
British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland), both 
without and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many ves- 
sels are so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the 
number of men employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish 
are taken there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, ahd 
what is the proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the 
amount of such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, 
and of the amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 


_ the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 


of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it con- 


sist? A very small per centage of the fish will be caught within the 


limits, still I think free fishing will add much to the value of the catch 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing. 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, 
what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- 
nually, in the aggregate? I think none of any value. We have had 
no trouble in this respect of consequence 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 


American Provinces as to the people of the United States? I have no 


_ doubt. of it 


31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
? 


‘descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ! Reports 


_ give these facts 


82. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat her- 
ring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the lL nited States afford the 
only market. this is mainly true ; Be 

33. If you know what amount of duties !s annually paid to the United 


_ States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 


ety 2 


them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 


- 34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 


- on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 


7) 


annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 15/2, inclusive. : ; 
35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 


3028 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the ri ghts in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to the 
United States. Ifyou know anything bearing upon this subject which 
you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please State 
it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. I 
have no doubt that all the Provinces so far as the Fishing interest has 
to do with it, will thrive and prosper, much better under the free fishing, 
dureing the ten years of Resciprosituty or free fishing, they prospered 
much better than they have since, this is their own testimony, as I have 
heard it from very many of them, merchants as well as Fishermen 


themselves. 
CHAS C. PETTINGILL 
CustoM HOUSE, SALEM. 


Subscribed & sworn before me this twentieth day of June 1873. 
CHAS. H. ODELL Collector 


No. 15. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? William H Nelson age 43. Plymouth Massachusetts 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been engaged in the Cod- 
fishery since 1851 

4. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have examined it. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel Herrings & Men- 
haden principally 

6, Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, in- 
clusive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. Mackerel fishery is carried on in 
Gloucester Provincetown Wellfleet Chatham Boston, Portland & other 
ports in Maine from which such information could be obtained 

i. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
I cannot. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually ta 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the watel 


reer geen cqutietindet eco 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3029 


off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? Cannot state but Gloucester should be able to give 
this information. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
_ your State? and if so, to what extent and value? Bait is purchased 

& sent to their ports. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington ?—The Menhaden Bait which 

_ are used principally for mackerel fisherman are taken wholly in Mass. 
& Maine and are valuable, to what extent I cannot say. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fish- 

_ eries cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 

fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
-extent annually? They will necessarily diminish the catch of our fish- 
/erman as a large fleet is more destructive to schools of mackerel than 
| smaller ones and any increase has that effect. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
‘fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, aud the 
{number of men employed upon them? I cannot say. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
| coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
| sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
jries? Mackerel fisherman are the only in shore fisherman and the num- 
| ber Gloucester couid determine as I am not engaged in it. 

14, For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
‘in-shore fisheries? Mackerel only. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
‘for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
‘the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 

limits? I cannot state from my own knowledge but only from the 
statements made by the fishermen themselves some state it at about } 
‘while others place the quantity much less and regard the inshore limit 
\as of little or no value. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
‘fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
‘found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore? 
‘They are— ° 

17. Are colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
‘to fish in colovial in-shore waters? I should consider not 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
‘shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out than when fishing alone? I think it is 
‘unquestionably so Stet 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces,“as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Menhaden are the princepal bait, and are caught usually in 
Bays & harbors. Vessels use from 20 to 60 Bs in season, and value 1s 
from 5 to $8 per Bl ' , 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ie» vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 


3030 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Cost of fitting & furnishing vessels for codfishery 
exclusive of 1st cost of vessel & wages would be for one trip, about 
#25 per ton of vessel engaged in deep sea fisheries or Estimating catch 
as a full one about 2.00 per Ql currency, not including wages of men 
which would vary considerably. 

21, When you have fully answered question 20, please answerthesame | 
questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned from _ 
the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far as you | 
are able todo so. If you state that there is any difference between the | 
cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these re- 
spects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. I can- 
not state with any accuracy as to the cost of fitting vessels from Cana- 
dian ports, but it is much less on all articles of foreign importation used, 
as duties are much less on all such articles than in U. States The 
cost of their vessels is much less, not exceeding 3 of the cost of simi- 
lar class of vessels built here their salt cost them less also, which is 
quite an item in curing of fish and Lumber, chains & anchors are also 
free of duty, costing not over 3 of prices of such articles here. 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? I am not acquainted to any extent. | 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are | 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the | 
Treaty of Washington? Mackeril & Herrings only. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open | | 
to Ameri¢éan fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the | | 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant | | 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. I cannot. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three | | 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, | | 
and what is the value? Not that I am aware of. , 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If | 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, isit 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- | _ 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of 
that advantage. Supplies are purchased toa considerable extent in ail 
the Ports of Prince Edward Island, Cape Bretou; and Nova Scotia and | — 
the trade must be of considerable value The amount I am unable to — 
State. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British § _ 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without | ~ 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are sO) ~ 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men | 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, — 
What is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro-| 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the | 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? I cannot state with any 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3031 


accuracy the number of vessels so engaged as the Gov't c: 
‘determine that from C. House mabavan” Giguossice saan a casaeen 
in what fisheries are prosecuted in those Waters and could furnish 
such  eabtalaniee : ; 
28. at percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgr 
the profits of a voyage by the nriailers. to fish withia ites erteniralion 
of the coast ; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? It is of no value to any but mackerel fisherman 
29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
_ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
| them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before: if so what 
| are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually 
_ in theaggregate? The American fisheman consider themselves as sur. 
/ rendering more than they receive and gain no rights in drying and car- 
_ ing fish which they did not possess before : 
30, Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
/ concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
_ American Provinces as to the people of the United States? More so 
31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
| descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? I can- 
| not state 
2. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat her; 
| ring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the only 
market. It does the only market 
_ 33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
State on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
' them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. I cannot. 
34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
| on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
| made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them an- 
/ nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. I do not. 
__ 35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
|} respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
| Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
| for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to the 
United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject which 
_ you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state 
| it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. As 
' Ihave before stated the value of in shore fisheries accrues to the benefit 
_ of the mackerel fisherman only, as the Codfishery is a deep sea fishery 
and is cheifly pursued on the Banks of Newfoundland, and the treaty 
which allows fish & oil from the Provinces to come in free of daty 
: ahd seriously interfere with the value of our own catch in our owo mnar- 
ets as we cannot with increased cost of outfits & vessels, compete 
Successfully with these fisherman. The mackerel fisheman feel that in 
opening our coast to their fisherman in procuring Bait and in supplying 
our markets with fresh fish and mackerel, which on our coast are supe- 
' rior in quality, is surrendering a greater value than any advantage which 
the treaty opens up to our fisherman in the Bay of s’t Laurence. The 
Quantity of mackerel caught on our coast is much greater than that 
_€aught on their coast'and the price of mackerel of our coast catch will 
- gommand usually 25 °% per cent. more than that caught in Bay of st 
Laurence. The Fresh fish trade which has increased rapidly the past 


few years and is now increasing by the opening up of Rail Commantea- 


"= 


3032 AWARD OF THE FISIIERY COMMISSION, 


tion is open to their fisheman by this treaty, and its value alone is in 
my opinion worth more to them than all the advantage we can receive 


back. The Codfishery interest here and in the vicinity would not were » 


it in their power surrender our markets or open them free to their fishe- 
man for all the rights they confer coupled with the payment of $500,000 
to them as a compensation under the reciprocity treaty the fisheries in 
the ports of Barrington & vicinity numbered some 50 vessels which 
found a market for their fish in our ports since that time their fisheries 


have declined in Barrington alone, to some 5 to 6 vessels only, and their | 


fisherman are pursuing the business in vessels from here and vicinity. 
Some 12 entire crews coming from that section are employed in vessels 
here this present season, the present treaty Will encourage their fisheries 
and deprive us of men necessary to mau our vessels, which we obtain 
from Provinces. 
Yours respectfully 
W. H. NELSON 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
COUNTY OF PLYMOUTH 


; TOWN OF PLYMOUTH 
PLYMOUTH July 3, 1873 


Then William H. Nelson personally appeared and made oath that the © 


statements by him made and signed, in the foregoing document, heretc 
annexed, are true according to his best knowledge & belief. 
Before me 
(Seal.) JNO. J. RUSSELL 
Notary Public within & for said county— 


No. 16. 
[| CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
Erie TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


1, What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Asa W. Small; 33, Nantucket, Mass. 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with the 
American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the cateh 
of the different kinds of fish? I have been in the fishing business for 
twenty years. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ? 
If so, please give some such name. 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have examined the articles from 18 to 22. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Cod, Mackerel, Haddock, 
: slated aa Porgee, Bluefish, Herring, Shad, Striped-Bass, Sea Bass 
Xx allout. 


6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 


| 
} 
} 
} 


. 


v 


+ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3033 


annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, incla- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value ot 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisher- 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state 
Sy in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, aud the value of each 

nd. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They do not. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be- 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? 

11, Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the protitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen ; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually. i 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Not any at present. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sist of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish. 
eries? 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the in 
shore fisheries ?. Cod, and Mackerel. : 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits ? 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel gen- 
erally found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 


shore? The larger quantity are taken off shore. 


17. Are colonial fishermen injured by permitting A merican fishermen 


} to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? I should say not. 


18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, whea fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, trom which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone! Yes,— 
That has been my experience. le een ee 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is If princi 


pally taken? How much of it is taken within three miles df the shore, 


and what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British 
Provinces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles . 
the shore? Porgee & Menhaden, principally taken from Long Island, 
N Y. to the coast of Maine. : . 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and 


+ . . . *. . 4 +. length 
manning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating 1b by the average | 
Of the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go 


3034 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of return- 
ing to the home port. : 

21, When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. 

2”, Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, 
with the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, 
or Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of 
these fisheries? I am acquainted with the fisheries of Nova Scotia and 
Prince Edwards’ Island. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Cod and Mackerel. 

24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast-of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? They do not. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing ves- 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood duriug the fisking 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 
British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both 
without and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels 
are so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number 
of men employed anuually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken 
there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is 
the proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount 
of such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? Very little — or none 

“9. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, 
What are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- 
nually, in the aggregate? They do not gain anything, as they do not 
In these days cure fish or repack, but return home as soon as they get 
their fares 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? I 


= 


» - ’ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3035 


should say that the people of the British North American Provinces bad 
the best of us, by far— 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of al! 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market? It does. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 

' States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
ou fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. - If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 

ASA W SMALL 

NANTUCKET, ss. June 10th, 1873. 

Then personally appeared the above named Asa W. Small and made 
oath to the truth of the foregoing statements by him signed, before me. 

T. C. DEFRIEZ 
Collector of Customs. 
No: 49: ase 


[CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 

STATES. 

1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside ? 


Charles E. Smalley, aged 40, | 
Reuben C. Kenney aged 56, § 
_. 2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with the 
American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the catch 
of the different kinds of fish? Have followed the fishing business at Sea 
for fifteen years. ; 
8. Can you give the names of other persons In your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information | If so, 
i h name. oie, oe 

Wee recat between Great Britain and the United States, 
_ known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you Lg 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so! We 

_ ‘have examined and read articles 18 to 22. inclusive. . 
5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian ehermen saSet 
_ provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Cod, Mackerel, Halibut, Had- 


dock, Herring, and Porgies. a 
: 6. Can eae nave a O ecrank of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 


Nantucket, Mass. 


3036 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, 
inclusive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state 
where that information can be procured. 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisber- 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state 
them in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by, American fishermen, in the waters 
ott the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
ot Washington ? 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
_ your State, and if so, to what extent and value? Canadian fishermen 
do not purchase bait or Supplies in our State, to any extent. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in 
being able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack 
and cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without. any other re- 
striction than that contained in the Treaty of Washington? The Value 
is nothing in our estimation. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisher- 
ies cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? They will in this way; They can man their Vessels 
with less expense, consequently they can undersell us, and by bringing 
their fish to our market they will do so, as there are no duties on them, 
oe the result will be, our markets will soon be glutted, and fish very 
ow. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State,.and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? We do not know of any 
Canadian Boats or Vessels engaged in the fisheries, in this State. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? In our estimation, Two Thirds consists of Deep sea fisheries, and 
one third of Inshore fisheries. | 
_ 14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-Shore fisheries? Mackerel, Cod, and Porgies, chiefly Mackerel. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 

chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? More than two thirds of the Mackerel are taken outside 
of the inshore limits,—in our opinion.— 
_ 16, Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and not within shore ? 
W e should say, The greater portion of Mackerel taken off the coasts of 
British America, would be outside the in shore limits, and in the Sum- 
mer Season, Mackerel are generally found wide out on the Banks. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? We should say they are not injured, 
but benefitted in a measure. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3037 


uantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? & 

think the Colonial fishermen would be the gainers in the end by Savike 
the mackerel baited up for them. = . 
_ 19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov. 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? The Porgie is considered the best bait for the Mackerel, is taken 
all along the Shores & Rivers, Long Island Sound, Connecticut River, 
Pleasant Bay, Boston Bay, off Portsmouth, Portland, and all along the 
Eastern Shore. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. For a Vessel of Seventy tons, manned by 10 men for 
a trip of 3 months to the Banks for Cod Fish 


PW OBEEN oS cnc cacinwces Soe niet ob nes 4 ec slau Shem See eat e cece te aeeeae ee 8700, 00 
Provimone BoU0 Pel ea00. osc Sae cs Aches aioe ine Jaci s ae as Sane he an, OO 
Fart S200... DOTS S200. os oss ccc oc sace ohvasicees seceeeuceees Site sheen te 490, 00 
rat nes — Leads S50; HuNdnes: S100). css. c2ec.cce cee sces Sace.b os dawesecs 150. 00 
EMM DURROB Cee cat g antics Sina e<es\sscvas weoudsesa ceed (acersnvceterdare 1, 700, 00 

Maotalyscseuce cessed sees Saceee see Misidessvccsticce REO 


21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able todo so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebee, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries ? 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? 

24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 ine’usive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open to 
American fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the cateh 
in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant from the 
shore; please state these facts in detail. rete 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 

-tmniles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada?! If so, to what extent, 
and what is the vajue? They do procure bait within 3 miles of the 
above coast. heen 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase suppliesin the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 


‘ not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 


vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. American fishermen do purchase supplies 


- such as Salt, Bait, Ice, Barrels, and provisions Xe in the Ports of the 
_ dominion of Canada. 


- 


3038 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | 


27, Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the Brit- 
ish North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? 

28, What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it con- 
sist ? 

29, Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? Do not consider it is any advantage to American 
fishermen, to dry nets or cure fish in any way, as by so doing, they. in- 
jure themselves by the detention ‘of getting their cargoes to market. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? More ben- 
eficial to the people of the Provinces than to the peopleof the United 
States. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

32. For all No. 1 and No.2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. It does. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the Uni: 
ted States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which, are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said treaty, please state them an- 
nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said treaty to the 
United States. If you know avything bearing upon this subject which 
you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state 
it as fully asif you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 

CHARLES. E. SMALLEY 
REUBEN C KENNEY 


NANTUCKET, Ss. June 9th, 1873. + 

Then personally appeared the above named Charles E. Smalley, and | — 
Reuben C, Kenney and made oath to the truth of the statements above 
signed by theim—before me 


T. C. DEFRIEZ. 
Collector of Customs. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3039 
No. 18. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Elisha Crowell; Brooklyn. New-York. 59 Years ; 

2, What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? ‘Twenty five years experience in 
catching, buying and selling fish . 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ¢ 
If so, please give some such name. Caleb Nickerson, Esq. Brooklyn. 
New York. 

4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto aunexed. Will you ex 
eee articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done sof | 

ave. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel. Herring. Codfish. 
Haddock. Hake. Bass. Shad. Porgies. Menhadden. Spanish Macker Eels 
Lobsters. Bluefish. Sword & Week fish 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inelu- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. 


Mackerel 75.000 Barrels. Menhaden. 500.000 Bble. 
Codfish 70.000 Quintals. Haddock. ; 15,000 Bbls. 
Bluefish 75.000 Bbls. All other kind 300.000 
Lobsters. 10.000 Bbls. Annually. 
Porgies. 50.000 Bbls. 


7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind, 
I estimate from waters in and adjacent to this state (N Y.) about Nine 
(9) Million dollars in Mackerel alone. All other Kinds of Fish about 
Ten (10) Million dollars. ae Rl 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 


by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


: ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, W 


s 


off the-coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 


of Washington? Have no estimate. o.0 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? Do not take bait 
from our waters, but purchase from the United States. 


j 4 ‘. ‘ i rm > > j be 
Ra's s able annual value to Canadian fishermen in 
see scl lal ara and to repack and 


ithout any other peepee 
i i ‘eaty of Washi ? About an equa 

than that contained in the Treaty of Washington ot 
value, except the priviledge of procuring bait from the United yen 
11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisher- 


‘ 


3040 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
ies cause any detriment r hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? It will probably be a detriment to our Markets to the 
amount of Twohundred Millions. 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? None. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
eoasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? fully Nine tenths (,°;) consist of deep sea fisheries; about one 
tenth (,);) in shore fisheries 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the in- 
shore fisheries? Mackerel & Herring 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? Nine tenths off shore. (,°;) One tenth in shore. (;'>) 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes. a very large proportion caught outside, say 5%; 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Yes. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Menhaden taken from American waters all in shore. Fifty 
Thousand dollars benefit to the British Provinces, annually— 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning a 
vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the cruise. 
State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to make up the 
cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning to the home 
port. Menhaden, Mackerel, Codfish, Herring, Bluefish, Lobsters, Por- 
gies, Haddock Hake, Halibut, Swordfish & Weekfish Cost of Shooner. 
Peed Fitting, equipping & furnishing for a cruise of thirty days, 
dies | 

i When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference between 
the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these 
respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. Estimated 
expense of Canadian Vessels one half of the same class of vessel built in 


the United States, on account of the inferior Materials & Workmanship 
also cheapness of Labor 


Oy 


22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, 
wise the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Que- 
ec, or Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which 


4 


—_ 


= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8041 


of these fisheries? I am—for Twenty five yea a 
coasts for codfish & mackerel. J Te Ong Sood os aks 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those. coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel, Herring, & Lobsters. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen ; also the amount and the anuual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. No answer. See 
question, 27. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Do not procure any bait, not plenty in Cana- 
dian waters. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ? 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is 
it not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
value of that advantage. They do at Halifax and in the ports of the 
straits of Canso & Prince Edward Islands. And it isa great advantage 
to the Dominion ports to have American vessels on account of trade & 
trafic, ' 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without and 
within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so en- 
gaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? About one hundred and 
fifty sail of Schooners. Valued at one Million five hundred thousand dol- 

lars; Employing Fifteen hundred men—catching Mackerel and codfish 
valued at seven hundred thousand dollars, one tenth (,)5) within three 
miles and nine tenths (,%,) outside the three mile limit 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to the 
profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles of 
the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist ? 
About one tenth (;1;) when the fish lay in shore and cannot be taken oft 
shore. , 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, 


what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- 


| Rually, in the aggregate? I do not consider it of any value to American 


fishermen 


_ 30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 


Se 
ein) T 


concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
‘American provinces as to the people of the United States? It is more 
benefit to the Provinces, than the United states. 


. 31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 


191F 


descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Refer 
to statistics. 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. Yes,it is the only market 

33. 1f you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the 
United States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to 
be made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872 inclusive. Refer 
to Statistics in possession of the government. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Ido not know of 
any fish or fish oil being shipped to Canada. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great. 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
I consider the Treaty of more value to the British Provinces than to 
the United States for the following reasons; First—for the priviledge of 
fishing on the coast of the United States. Second.—the marketiug and 
shipping their fish free. Third—the furnishing our fishing vessels with 
supplies. 


3042 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


g ELISHA CROWELL 
STATE OF NEW YORK g ; 
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW Wout ne. 


Elisha Crowell, merchant of the City of New York, being duly sworn, 
deposes and says, that the answers made by him to the several inter- 
rogatories as above, have been duly considered by him, and that the 
same are based on his knowledge and experience of the fisheries, and ‘ 
that the subject matter therein contained is true to his best knowledge 
and belief so far as the same can be ascertained. 

ELISHA CROWELL 


Sworn before me This 18 day of June 1873 
A. M. SARES (Seal.) 
Notary Public. 


No. 19. 


[CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside Caleb Nickerson, 48 years, Brooklyn, New York, 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish ? Twenty years experience in catch- 
ing, buying and selling fish. 


3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood | 


: meld, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3048 


who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? 
e a please give some such name. Elisha Crowell Esq. Brookly n, New 

ork, 3 

4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United State 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ee 
pine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done sof | 

ve 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel, Herring, Codtish 
Haddock, Hake, Bass, Shad, Porgies, Menhaden, Spanish Mackerel, 
Eels, Lobsters, Blue fish, Sword and Week fish. 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 


5 I 


annually off the coast of your State from the years 1354 to 1872, in- 


elusive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. 


Mackerel, 75,000 Barrels Menhaden 500,000 Bbls 
‘Codfish, 70,000 Quintals all other kinds 300,000 “ 

Blue fish, 75,000 Bbls 

Lobsters, 10,000 ‘ Annually. 

Porgies, 50,000 ** (The above estimate includes both fresh 


f Haddock, 15,000 ** & salt fish) 


7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 


_ American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 


under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 


in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 


About Seven Million dollars in Mackerel alone. All other kinds of fish, 


‘one hundred and Twenty five Million dollars. 


8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


i off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 


of Washington ? 
_ 9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 


your State? and if so, to what extent and value? Do not take bait from 


the waters, but purchase from the United States ; but can avail them- 
selves of this privilege under the treaty. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be- 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and 


- ¢ure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? About an equal 


»value, except the privilege of procuring bait from the United States. 
~ 11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 


- fisheries by our own fishermen; and it so, in what manner, and to what 


extent annually? It will. Probably a detriment to our markets to the 
amount of Two Hundred Millions. iat ae 
12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
‘number of men employed upon them? None 
- 13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 


* 


‘coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 


sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish - 
' eries? fully nine tenths (,3;) consist of deep sea fisheries, about one 


tenth (,;) inshore fisheries 
Re what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the in- 


ore fisheries ? Mackerel & Herring 


3044 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? Nine tenths (,,) offshore. One tenth (5) on shore. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen on the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and not within shore ? 
Yes. A very large proportion caught outside 

17. Are Colonia! fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Yes. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where it is principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Menhaden—taken from American waters—all in shore. Fifty 
thousand dollars benefit to the British provinces. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning a 
vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Menhaden, Mackerel, Codfish, Herring, Blue fish, 
Lobsters, Porgies, Haddock, Hake, Halibut, Sword & Week fish. Cost 
of Schooner $12,000 Fitting, equipping, & furnishing for a cruise of 
Thirty days, or more $6,000 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. Es- 
timated expense of Canadian Vessel, one half of the same kind or class 
of Vessel built in the United States. On account of the inferior mate- 
rials and workmanship, also cheapness of labor. 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? Iam, for Twenty years having fished on their Coasts for 
Codfish & Mackerel. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Codfish, Mackerel, Herring, Lobster. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. Uncertain as to cor- 
rect tlhe (Question 27 seems to embrace some of the information | 
sought. 

20. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 


eS . =_ 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8045 


and what is the value? Do not procure any bait. 
not found in sufficient numbers in Canadian A sethe rishi maior 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ¢ 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-valne 
of that advantage. They do at Halifax, and in the ports of the Straits 
of Canso and Prince Edwards Island, and it is a great advantage to the 
ep pinion ports to have American Vessels, on account of trade and 

affic. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? About One hundred 
and fifty sail of Schooners. Valued at one million five hundred thous- 
and dollars; Employing Fiteen hundred men, Catching Mackerel and 
Codfish, valued at seven hundred thousand dollars, one tenth (;\;) within 
three miles limit, and nine-tenths (,%,) out side the three mile limits. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast ; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it consist ! 
About one tenth (5) when the fish lay in shore and cannot be taken off 
shore. 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 

in the aggregate? I do not consider it of any value to American fish. 
erman. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States ? It is more 
benefit to the Provinces than to the United States. ; 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? I 
estimate. 


100, 000 ’ Barrels Mackerel walued: Ot <..<icccceclsscdaebeaswa 8! eager 
50, 000 ss Herring A eee ae eens es oe a 0, 008 
_ 7%, 000 Quintals Codfish Me MO canes sonsee senccenees eo 
“50, 000 “Hake & Haddock it, Moc dasaeneaeensanes™ —— 
10,000 Bbls. _ fish oil Mite ce oe esas 160, 009 
7 to 100,000 ‘ Alewives at $44 per Bbl. say ----------- +--+ err cereceee paper 
Muecther kinds of. fish. ...... .----2 -00- coos ssececnccccesncesccccccs cane wees pie 
Total AO Sinwe eins wae else enn 2, 410, 000 


.. é < he fat her- 
82. For all No.1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of t 
' ring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the only 


rket. Yes, it is the only market. 


‘ ce 
= 
3046 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


33. If you know what amount of duties is annaally paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to1872, inclusive. The Statis- 
tical department of the Government can, perhaps, answer this. I can 
only estimate based on answer to question 31, to wit: 


Say on Mackerel .2:..:.50 200s eesc sos wb ast esevtceues ees: c+ 9 B200, OF 
COd scass 3h Ses hewn eGR sea st weet or ae Seat ees 60, 000 
FVOPPINS «.-Senees ds ee eee ae ee eee ee eee 50, 000 
PRAddOC se eee aa eS ee eee ee ee 20, 000 
Bish (ou... 2245 Pee eR er ec ee ore 32, 0U0 

BOOP ALG oc as te aie ieee Same ek ees eee 362, 000 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canadaon 
fish-and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872 inclusive. I do not know of any fish- 
or fish oil being shipped to Canada. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully asif you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
I consider the treaty of more value to the British Provinces than to the 
United States, for the following reasons. 

1st for the privilege of fishing on the Coast of the U.S. 

2d the marketing and shipping their fish free. 

3d the furnishing of our fishing vessels with supplies. 


STATE OF NEW YoRK 
City & County oF NEw York, t Se 

Caleb Nickerson of the City of New York being duly sworn deposes 
and says, That the answers made by him to the several interrogatories 
as above, have been duly considered by him, and that the same are based. 
on his knowledge and experience of the subject of the fisheries, and that 
he believes the same to be true so far as can be ascertained without 
official statistical figures. 

CALEB NICKERSON. 
Sworn before me 


This 13 day of June 1873. (Seal.) 
I B GREGG Notary Public. 
No. 20. 
| CONFIDENTIAL. | ie 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 


STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside ? Horatio Babson ; thirty six; Gloucester, Mass. 
*. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3047 


the American and Canadian Atlantic sea fisheries, and the value 
eatch of the different kinds of fish? Have had sixteen ke ptr 
in the fishing business Now own eleven vessels, ; 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ? 
If so, please give some such name. John Pew & hundreds of others if 
required. 

4. A copy of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex. 
een articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so! I 

ave. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
sapere? of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel, Halibut Codfish, 

ollock, Hake, Menhaden, and many other kinds. 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the yeass 1854 to 1872, inclusive? 
If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where that in- 
formation can be procured. Would refer to the Genl Inspector's report 
of the annual catch of mackerel. One hundred (120,000) and twenty 
thousand bbls annually [ should judge to be about an average cateh 
taken off our own coast most of which are caught inside of three miles 
from the coast. - 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 


- under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state thei 


. 


in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
The Mackeral fishery on our coast I consider more valuable than that on 
the British coast. As the quality of mackeral taken on our coast is far 
superior to those taken on the coast of Nova Scotia and Bay of St. Law- 
Tence. The Menhaden fishery, the catch of which amounted to nearly 
eight hundred thousand dollars off Gloucester last year are caught only 
‘upon our coast, and havé never been known to frequent British waters. 
‘The Cod and other fisheries I regard as equal in value 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters. 


_ off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? The quantity and value taken by Canadian fishermen 


is of more value to them, than to our fishermen, as our American vessels 
seldom catch anything but mackeral within the three-mile limit. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? [ have known but 
two or three instances of Canadian vessels taking bait within three miles 


on our Coast, but they do purchase Menhaden for bait in large quantities, 


10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fisherimeu in 
being able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack 
and cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other Te- 
‘striction than that contained in the Treaty of Washington t The valae 
to be derived there from is of equal value to Canadians as it Is to our 
selves, should they improve the privilege as we do 


11, Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fish- 
_ eries cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of 


these fisheries by’our own fishermen ; aud if so, in what manner, and 


to what extent annually? American fishermen can supply oar inarkets, 
and all fish caught by foreigners will have a tendency to injure oar fish- 
os 


_ermen 


3048 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? I know of none at this present 
time 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? My opinion judging from the catch of our own vessels that 
seven eighths of the catch is taken out side of the three mile limit 

14. For what deszription of fish do American fishermen pursue the in 
shore fisheries? For Mackeral principally, and occasionally Herring 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? During the last sixteen years I have had vessels en- 
gaged in the Bay of Chalieur & Bay of St Lawrence, and during that 
time I have questioned our Captains very particularly on this question 
and I think I can truly say that about one eighth part of the mackeral 
are taken within three miles of the shore and seven eighths outside of 
the limits 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the inshore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? <A large porportion, in fact about all the mackeral our vessels 
an are taken outside the limits, late in the Fall the mackeral tend in 
shore. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial inshore waters? Only to a very limited extent. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? The larger 
quantity of bait thrown the more it tends to ‘toll the Mackeral, hence 
the catch will be larger. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it princi- 
‘pally taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, 
and what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British 
Provinces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of 
the shore? Pogies, sometimes called Menhaden are the best bait for 
Mackeral. They are caught only upon the New England Coast and 
tend inside of three miles. The value of Menhaden taken in 1873 
amounted to nearly ($800,000.00) Eight hundred thousand dollars. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. The vessels are sailed on shares, crew receive on 
half of proceeds. Average expense of a vessel for a five months cruise 
thirty five hundred dollars for out fits Expenses of 12 men five months 
three thousand dollars making in all about sixty-five hundred dollars 
for the voyage. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Saine questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able todo so. If you state that there is any difference be- 


——— 


I: a - 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3049 


tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. Our 
American fishermen cost about twice as much as the Canadian veasela 
our vessels being better built from the best of white oak, and fitted with 
the best of rigging, sails &c., while the Canadian, Prince Edward Isl- 
and, and Nova Scotia vessels are built from soft wood (spruce) and are 
rigged and fitted in a very inferior manner compared with our vessels. 
The cost of outfits for a Canadian fishing vessel to pursue a five months 
voyage would not be over one half of one of our American fishermen 

allowing the vessels to be of equal size , 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? With all the sea fisheries on the coast 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackeral, Herring, Halibut, Cod, Hake, Pol- 
lock and some others of less importance. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
eatch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. I estimate the an- 
nual value during the above years at about sixty thousand dollars per 
year for the fisheries inside of three miles. Outside of the three miles 
the value is of greater importance and depends all together on the en- 
ergy which is made to catch the fish, The more vessels and men im- 
ployed the greater the value. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Our vessels purchase large quantities of Her- 
ring & Mackeral for Bank fishing. I should judge we paid them one 
hundred and seventy thousand dollars annually in cash. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries! If 
So, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, Is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing- 
vessels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 


_ value of that advantage. I should judge the profits to be derived from 
the business which the Canadians receive from our vessels in purchasing 


S 


portion, or probable proportion, in your jue 


supplys from them to be equal to one hundred thousand dollars annually, 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
Sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are 80 


engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 


employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what isthe pro- 
lgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? I should judge about 


Seven hundred and fifty sail, valued as near as I can judge at 


= 
s 


_ average twelve men. Principal fish 


($7,500,000.) seven million five hundred thousand. Each vessel will 


caught are Mackeral, Cod, Halibut, 


“? 


3050 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and Herring. Annual value of fish caught, one and three-quarter mil- 
lion dollars. Value of fish taken inside of three miles about sixty thou- 
sand dollars. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it con- 
sist? I do uotregard it of any value as far as profit isconcerned. The 
only benefit to be derived is freedom of Ports and free from annoyance. 

29, Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? The value of the above privileg’s I regard as of very 
little importance. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? Far 
more beneficial to British subjects. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? I do 
not know the amount. 


32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the greater part of the fat - 


herring, and tor all No. 1 salmon does not the United States afford the 
only market. It does nearly all. ; 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. I do not 
know the amount, but would refer to statistics 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and tish-oil imported trom the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. I do not know. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent for 
the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to the 
United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject which 
you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state 
it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. My 
opinion is that England will derive more benefit from the treaty of 
Washington than the United States, and it is the opinion of nearly all 
who are engaged in the fishing business, that we have already granted 
more privileges to the subjects of Great Britain under the treaty than we 
shall receive. The admission of British fish into our markets free of 
duty is a serious blow to the fishing interests of the United States. Our 
fishermen can supply our markets from the catch on our own coast and 
the deep-sea fisheries. Since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty I 
have kept about one half of my vessels employed off our coast, and in every 
instance they have landed more fish and stocked more money than those 
that have been employed in the Bay of St Lawrence. When the Dominion 
Government authorized a system of licensing American fishermen for 
which they charged fifty cents per ton for the privilege of fishing within 
the three-mile limit, freedom of their ports &e.—Our Captains during 
the first year took licenses (part of them) and the benefit they derived 


from it they did not consider equal to the amount paid, and the next — 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION.- 3051 


year when they went to the Bay the Dominion Government charged 
one dollar per ton for license. Our Captains declined taking licenses 
considering the price too much for the benetit to be derived 


; HORATIO BABSON 


GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 
Personally appeared H. Babson and acknowledged the above to be 
his free act and deed and that these statements are true to the best of 
his knowledge and belief. 
Before me 
AARON PARSONS J P, 


1 Charles P. Mitchell, Captain of the American fishing schooner Mo- 
dena B. Jeraulds have been engaged in fishing in the Bay of St Law- 
rence during the last fifteen years, Have read the questions and answers 
herein annexed and I fully concur in them all. 

CHARLES P. MITCHELL 

GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 


I George W. Lane, Captain of the American fishing schooner Adelia 
B. Hartwell have been engaged in fishing in the Bay of St Lawrence 
during the last fifteen years, Have read the questions and answers 
. herein annexed and I fully concur in them all. 
GEORGE W. LANE. 
GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 


No. 21. 


[CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
. STATES. 


7 . 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 

reside? Frank. W. Friend Gloucester, Mass 

_ 2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
_ the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
- eateh of the different kinds of fish? Have been engaged in the Fishing 
_ business as Owner and Fitter several years. 

§ _ 3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
~ have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information! If se, 
é please give some such name. Perkins Bros. Charles Parkburst W. H. 
- Friend & others. ie i 
_ 4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
_ known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed, Will you ex- 
- amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you hay e done so! I 
_ have examined articles 18 to 22 : 
- 5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
- those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
a oo of the Treaty of Washington! Mackerel Herring Pogies 
6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish ty 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1554 to 1872, ~ a- 
_ sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. 


3052 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? Must be obtained from Statistics , 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? All their Pogie Bait 
is obtained from the U.S. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? Nothing except cheaper vessels and more competi- 
tion 

12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Uncertain 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
oh Nearly all the Fishing untill September is off shore deep sea 

shing 


14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 


in-shore fisheries? Mackerel principally 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? Think ? of the Mackerel caught before the 15th of Sept 
are caught outside the three-mile limit 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? They are, Bank Bradly & Orphan being the best fishing 
cman the summer season of Magdalen Island some Mackerel are 
caug 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permittting American fisher- 
men to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No In good seasons they are 
much benefitted by American vessels fishing in their Waters 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Yes 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
What is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Pro- 
vinces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore ? Porgies, mostly taken on the shores of Massachusetts & Maine 

“UV. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, turnishing, and manning 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3053 


a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average lengt! 

eruise. State, as far as possible, in Wetail: the deionte Ge at 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Pogie Fishing requires a crew of 10 men at a cost of 
about 300 a month. Mackerel Fishing about the same exclasive of 
crews Wages, Bank Fishing $400 a month this includes Barrels salt 
costs of fitting Insurance &c— 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. 
Don’t know the expense of fitting Canadian vessels but should judge 
from what I have seen of their Vessels & fittings that they could be run 
for one half of what American Vessels could 


Sch Finance 
for the season of 1872— 
Fished on Georges from Feb. 1 to July 15, then went to the Bay of 
St. Lawrence and stopped untill Sept. 20 and then followed Georges 
Fishing untill Nov. 15— 


Cost of Stores 1200 
Cost * Salt 500 
Cost * Barrels 240 
Cost of Running the Vessel sails rigging &c— 900 
Insurance— 350 
Bait 800 
3990 

Crew Share 3900 $7890. 00 
Value of 260-000 w Codfish 5800 
“= && «2990 BIl Mackerel 2400 


$8200. 00 


This was more than an average Season work— 

92. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? Am well acquainted with them. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 


Treaty of Washington? Mackerel mostly. Halibut & Cod fish in 


small quantities. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open to 
Americau fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 


- eatch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 


from the shore; please state these facts in detail. oon 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent; 
and what is the value? As a general thing, the American fishermen 
buy their bait of the Canadians. ee 
- 29. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies 10 the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries f If 


E so, in what ports, and to what_extent ; and, if that is the case, is it not 


3054 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


an advantage to the ports of the dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing 
season ; explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value - 
of that advantage. Yes; during the Reciprocity Treaty nearly the 
whole American Fleet refitted in Canso & Charlottetown. In some cases 
their Outfitts amounting to $1,500. I should think the Mackerel Fleet 
would average $600. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 
British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both with- 
out and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are 
so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of 
men employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken 
there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the 
proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit. About 660 Vessels are 
annually engaged they average about 60 tons worth $60 pr ton $2,350,- 
000 employing 8,000 men. ; 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profits derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? In case we are deprived of Fishing at the mouths of the rivers. 
the Fishey would be entirely valueless— : 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washingto 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? No, the Canadians are more benefitted than we are 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? It is 
more benefit to the Canadians than to the American Fisherman 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? See 
report of U. S. Statistics 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. No Fat Mackerel & Hering are shipped anywhere ex- 
cept the U.S. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the Uni- 
ted States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them, annually and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. See 
Report from Beaureou of Statisties 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state theman- - 
nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. The amountof | — 
remission of Duties on Canadian Fish and the free market of the U. S— 
for their Mackerel, & other Fish, Saving of Expenses of Cutters, And 
the benefits of a large trade from the American Vessels, the admission 
to our coasts for Menhaden & Mackerel, will aggregate an advantage 
of nearly $2,000,000 a year in gross amount—For this we obtain the 
privilege of persuing a fishery, which after deducting expenses will not 
nett to the American Fisherman $10,000 pr year— 


-_ _. NN OOOO 


x" 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8055 


35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
| What we desire most by the treaty of Washington is to have accorded 
to American Fishing Vessels, the same rights & privileges that have 
ever been accorded to English Vessels in American Waters. If this 
courtesy is to be reckoned at the money value the Dominion may have 
some claim, but if the in shore fishery is the only concession, barring us 
the right to fish at the mouths of the rivers, the U. States gets abso- 
lutely nothing for the privilege of building up a Foreign fishery at the 
expense of its own citizens. : 

. FRANK. W. FRIEND 
SIDNEY FRIEND 
Of the firm of Sidney Friend & Bro 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COUNTY OF ESSEX $8 


Subscribed and sworn to, 


} SS. GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 


Before me 
(Seal) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public. 
No. 22. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what tewn and State do you 
reside? George W. Plumer; Aged 55 yrs; Gloucester Massachusetts 
2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been familiar with the busi- 
ness for more than thirty years, and engaged in Mackerel—Herring and 
|| other fisheries fifteen years in American waters, also at Newfoundland, 
_ Gulf of St Lawrence. P. E. Island &e &e 
3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? 
If so, please give some such name. Andrew Leighton and hundreds of 
others if required i. re sh 
4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
| known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed, «Will you ex- 
| amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, aud state that you have done 80. — 
| 5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Codfish. Halibut. Mackerel. 
_ Pohagan. Herring and Pollock are most valuable. bat many other kinds 
could be mentioned pe 
_ 6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
| amnually off the coast of your State from the years 1554 to 15/2, inelu- 
| 2 sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 


3056 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


that information can be procured. The kinds are those above named, 
but the quantity and value is so enormous that a long time would be 
required to ascertain from Statistics the actual fact, or a correct esti- 
mate 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisher- 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state 
them in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of 
each kind. British vessels have had no occasion formerly to take fish 
in American Waters excepting to a limited extent. but under the 
Treaty of Washington they will have every facility that American fish- 
ermen bave now or formerly enjoyed. and our markets being free will 
afford them a decided advantage over us from the fact of vessels being 
cheaper built and sailed than ours. I doubt if they ever improve these 
opportunities to any great extent. but if they choose to do so could 
employ one thousand Sail of Vessels in American fisheries, as well as 
Citizens of the United States 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? the quantity taken by Canadian and other British 
fishermen is very large and of great value to them. but to Americans of 
little value comparatively from the fact that the British takes mostly 
Codfish and Herring—while Americans seldom fish for Cod within three 
miles of land and only have occasion to take Mackerel and Herrings 
within the limits of three miles 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? I have never known 
but one British vessel to take bait in the Waters of Massachusetts, but 
they do purchase Pohagan bait salted in considerable quantities 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? This depends entirely on 
their improving these advantages as before stated. the privilege is as 
valuable to them as to us, if they make the best of it 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? American fishermen can supply the Markets of the 
United States with all fish caught in our waters. so that all landed by 
foreigners are so much taken from our own fishermen 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your States, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? None at this time June 1873 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? Lam of the opinion that more than nine tenths (,%;) of all fish 
caught by Americans in British waters are deep sea fish. or taken more 
than three miles from land. 
_ 14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? If at all only for Mackerel and Herring 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursu ed wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
Within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3057 


in-shore limits? In answering this question I would state that having 
made enquiry of several competent Masters of vessels engaged many 
years in Mackerel fishing in British waters, they all inform me that 
only a very few times in many years have they ever seen an opportanity 
to fish within three miles of the shore, the difficulty has been they were 
not allowed to fish outside the three miles limit. being captured or an- 
noyed by British Cruisers when five or six miles from land. 

The question constantly arising of limitation. and in my judgment 
the same trouble may come under the new Treaty of determining the 
Mouths of Rivers, as Mackerel frequent the entrance of creeks and 
Rivers to obtain feed 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within shore ? 
A large proportion are off shore, but late in Summer and Autumn they 
frequent the mouths of Rivers and in shore for feed 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? Only to a very limited extent 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? The more 
Bait thrown, and the better the quality the more Mackerel are taken, and 
Canadians would have the advantage, our vessels using more bait 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Provin- 
ces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the shore ? 
Pohagan called “ Pogies” make the best bait for Mackerel—and are 
caught on the New England Coast only—and usually within three Miles 
of shore. my estimate of the value is (3750,000) three-fourths of a mil- 
lion dollars. : 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing and manning a 
vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the crutse. 
State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to make up the 
cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning to the home 
port. The vessels are usually sailed on Shares, the men receiving one- 
half the proceeds of Sales of tish, but I should estimate the expenses and 
earnings of crews would average for the Mackerel Season of about five 
months, three thousand dollars (33,000) to each vessel 
- 21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American Vesse! ti 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reasou for HF 
Having been engaged in the fishing business at P. E. Island I shou . 
estimate the expense there at two-thirds (3) for each vessel of that of. 
our vessels, for the reason that the vessels are built cheaper. the men 
| are fed poorer and of course at a lower rate there rate of duties ou im- 
hs icle less 
| Be oe ee caiaied: and for how long, and in what capacity, =e 
She fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with hea ree 
fisheries? Inthe Capacity of Owner for about fifteen years in Mackere 


192 F 


3058 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and Herring mostly. at Gulf of St Lawrence Newfoundland. Bay of 
Fundy and particularly P. E, Island 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of 
the Treaty of Washington ? Mackerel, Herrings- Cod, Halibut, Pollock, 
Haddock Hake and some other varieties 

°4, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? They do obtain bait, and I estimate the value 
at two hundred thousand dollars $200,000 which is paid in Cash to 
British fishermen. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it not 
an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-vessels 
of the United States in their neighborhnod during the fishing season ? 
Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that 
advantage. Money value of this trade $500,000 Half Million They 
do obtain supplies at all accessible British Ports. Say at all places in 
Bay of Fundy Halifax and other ports in Nova Scotia, Straits of Canso, 
Sydney in Cape Breton Charlottetown and Georgetown and others in 
P. E. Island Bay Chaleur—and many other smaller places 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic Coast of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so en- 
gaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 


employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, ~ 


what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? I estimate the number of Vessels 
so employed at Seven hundred, value at $3,000000 three millions Seven 
thousand men. fish taken are Cod, Mackerel, Halibut, Hake—Herrings 
Haddock—Pollock. &e &e 

Value of fish one and one half Million dollars and the amount taken 
within three miles of land at fifty thoasand dollars 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
to the protits of a voyage by the privilege to tish within three marine 
miles of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it 
cousist? Not over five per cent., and that from occasionally catching 
Mackerel, and a small amount derived from taking Herrings 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, 
what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- 
nually, in the aggregate? the value of drying Nets and making fish 
are very small, and the right to land fish in transit we have always had, 
or it bas usually been done 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 3059 


30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? more 
beneficial to British Subjects as all fat Mackerel and Herrings, and 
most other kinds of fat fish, are and mast be marketed in the United 
States, as they will not bear heat to West Indies 

31. What is the amount and value of Colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States!’ Amount 
unknown, but will be very largely increased with a free Market 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States aflord the 
only market. Fat fish cannot be sent into hot climate as they melt and 
become worthless, consequently the U. States consumes nearly all of 
that description . 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the 
United States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to 
be made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Am 
not in possession of the Statistics to show a correct answer to this ques- 
tion, but do know that they will be largely increased provided the Can. 
adians and other British Subjects improve their oppurtunities, and in 
this connection I would say that the Canadian fisheries are controlled 
to a great extent by Merchants of Wealth from the Island of Jersey, 
they having very extensive establishments. and with all facilities at 
command hire their Men and feed them as common Sailors.-.-thereby 
_ greatly reducing the Cost of Catching fish, while American fishermen 
earn more than double, and are fed and clothed better than the for- 
eigners, showing that if so disposed British Subjects can supply the 
United States with fish cheaper than we can do it ourselves 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Unknown. 

_ 35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights 
in respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to 
Great Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equiv- 
alent for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty 
to the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this sab- 
ject which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, 
please state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in re- 
spect of it. For reasons already given, and Many others that could 
‘be advanced. my opinion is that Great Britain has the best of the Treaty 
already. without any other Condition being granted, ; 

And feeling at liberty to express myself fully under this head, must 

say.that in my judgement and in that of others engaged in the fish- 
eries here, a mistake of great importance has been made in excluding 
us from the Mouths of Rivers as Mackerel which are our most valuable 
fish frequent those waters where their natural feed is found and this 
is frequently the case at points where the fresh and sea waters meet rs 
the Rivers Mouth. and this question or line should be clearly defines ° 
as otherwise the same trouble may arise in drawing the line, as grew out 
of the three mile question G. W. PLUMER 


_ GLOUCESTER 
Mass June 1873 


a 
© . 3 
: 


3060 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
MASS ’ JULY 21, 1873 
ESSEX SS. § 


Personally appeared the said Geo W. Plumer and made oath that 
these statements are true to the best of his knowledge and belief, 


Before me. 
AARON PARSONS, 
J 


No. 23. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. ] 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE _ PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Harvey Knowlton & Edward A. Horton Gloucester Mass. 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish ? Have been personally engaged as 
practical Fishermen twenty two years, Fitted and owned vessels seven 
years Wenow fit out eight vessels. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. 

4. A copy of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you 
examine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you havedone so? We 
have. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under 
the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel Codfish Pol- 
lock Menhaden 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inclu- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. The reports of the Inspector Gen of 
Fish for the State of Massachusetts comprises the most accurate state- 
ments. Think about 200,000 Bbls of Mackerel per year is a fair average 
for Mass vessels 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisher- 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state 
them in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. We consider the Mackerel fishery on our own coast as valuable as 
that on the British coast, the Codfishery in either case is not very valu- 
able The real difference is in the fact that the provincial Fishermen 
never have had the enterprise to avail themselves to any great extent 
of the benefits of this fishery 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian tishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
oll the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? If during reciprocity is meant, (within three miles of 
the shore) our vessels took about 20000 Bbls Mackerel in the best sea- 


sous Our Mackerel aud Menhaden fishery is valuable to the Canadians 
if they use them 


——, 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION, 3061 


9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They buy Menhaden 
or pogie bait for Mackerel from the Americans The Menhaden fishery 
is purely American. None have ever been known to frequent British 
waters 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack aud 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington? That depends en- 
tirely on their own enterprise They have never yet dove much more 
than fish of their own coasts. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fish- 
eries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what ex- 
tent annually? No 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? We have seen some few of their 
vessels on our coasts for Mackerel say 20 vessels 250 men ° 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? { of the Fisheries are deep sea fisheries At present all the Cod 
& Halibut are caught on the Grand, Brown & Georges Banks 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Almost entirely for Mackerel 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chietly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? During the latter part of the season Mackerel tend in shore and 
for about 6 weeks the fishing is better in shore Ona basis of 300 000 
Bbls. as the whole seasons catch for the Massachusetts fleet and allow- 
ing 100 000 Bbls to be taken in the Gulf of St Lawrence which is a 
large estimate 1, or 20 000 Bbls might under favorable circumstances 
be taken within three miles but even during reciprocity less than 
100,000 Bbls were taken one year both from British and American Wa- 
ters by the entire Mass fleet 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by Atmeri- 
can fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in- 

shore limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel 
generally found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not 

within shore?- Yes, Untill the 20th of Sept about all the Mackeriel are 
taken outside of three miles The Magdalen Islands aflord good fishing 
to the last of the season Nie : : 

‘17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No. No. Every man that ever 
caught a mackerel knows that the larger the fleet the better for all | 

18. Are not more fish caught, by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which Leal 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone a! re y; 
a large proportion of the Canadian Fishery 1s carried on in smal poate 

near the shore, say within 20 miles, Our fleet, with their immense 

“quantities of bait is of immense advantage to the Canadians : 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where Is 1¢ principa ‘ 

taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of he seen tee 

what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 


i = 
iS 
a tld) 


3062 — AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Menhaden, which are taken for bait for their Oil and the refuse 
made into Guano worth 60 Dollars per Ton, The gross receipts from 
this fishery for all purposes would not be less than four million dollars ; 
it is entirely an American fishery. 

2, Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and 
manning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average 
length of the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements 
which go to make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and 
of returning to the home port. The average cost for a season’s work of 
eight months is about 3000 Dollars or 3,500, as including salt, Bait Pro- 
visions, Trawls, lines. Gear & Boats insurance wear and tear. 


Time of 12 men 8 months $3840,00 
The average value of the entire fares from 5 to 8000 dollars 7340 
This is when no losses are made. 
Out of, a fleet of less than 500 Schooners at Gloucester the 

average loss has been for the last ten years over 10 ves- 

sels yearly and 100 lives yearly The vessels and fares 

are an entire loss as they are insured in the Mutual fish- 

ing office and all owners of vessels share in the loss . 


21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. The 
American vessels cost 80 Dollars per ton present Gov’t Measurement, the 
Canadian vessels cost from 30 to 35 Dollars per ton The difference in 
fitting is in the price of Gear Boats &e and the Canadian Fishermen are 
fed on Fish and potatoes principally while the Americans have fresh 
meat, salt meat Pork Vegetables in fact as good as the markets aftord 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? With all the fisheries on those coasts . 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
eeeey of Washington? Mackerel principally, some Codfish and Hali- 

u 

24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. The Mackerel fishery 
within three miles of the British coast would probably average under 
the most favorable circumstances 1) to 20,000 Bbls of Mackerel annual- 
ly, worth 100000 Dollars net From this amount should be deducted the 
cost of catching (say 250 vessels, 6 weeks, together with time of men 
employed Bait salt Ge, in fact the fish are worthless in the water. The 
Gulf of St Lawrence Mackerel fishery probably produces 100000 Bbis 
of Mackerel less thanone fifth are caught within three miles of the shore. 
The Statistics of Mass fisheries shows that when totally excluded from 


_—s 


| 


{ ~ 


_ better on our own coasts when tot 


= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3063 


the inshore fisheries our vessels have caught more Mackerel than when 


freely admitted to them, consequently the only alvantage obtained is 
the privilege of free ports and freedom from annoyance _—— 


25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent 
and what isthe value? Yes, American Cod Fishermen buy large quan. 
tities of Bait from the Canadian shore Fishermen, Our vessels never 
eatch their Bait always buy it some vessels pay as high as ®1000,00 
yearly to British fishermen tor Bait 

26. Do not American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of the 
Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, and 
various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries If so, 
in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it not 
an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-vessels 
of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season ? 
Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that 
advantagd. Yes, 200 000 Dollars is yearly paid for Bait During Re- 
ciprocity, nearly all the American fleet refitted in the Straits of Canso 
and Ports of Prince Edward Island and Halifax At a cost of not less 
than $500 000,00 This trade had grown to such dimensions that upon 
the imposition of the harsh measures adopted by the Canadian Govt 
against American Fishermen there was a universal outery on the part 
of the merchants and inhabitants of these ports. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newtoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? The Codfishery on the 
Banks employ about 200 Vessels & 2400 Men The Mackerel Fishery 
from 3 to 400. Vessels 6000 Men Value of Vessels about 2000 000 Dol- 
lars, Value of Mackerel about 700000 Dollars Value of Codfish & 
Halibut about 1 000 000 Dollars No Codfish or Halibut of any account 
are taken within three miles. About 15 or 20 000 Bbls Mackerel were 
usually taken in the best season during reciprocity within three miles, 


_ in poor seasons much less, 


28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine 
miles of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it 
consist? That depends entirely on the amount of mackerel taken If 
mackerel are plenty, the price is consequently reduced and Primero 
fishery is at all times precarious The whole matter Is conditional ant 
problematical The convenience of the ports, freedom from annoyance 
and capture is the chief consideration, The Mackerel fishery may be best 
on our own coast for years, it may be better on the Canadian coast, the 


liberty to pursue the fish wherever they may be is the main advantage in 


x Se begans ; ‘ -essels have done 
ening the coast fishery, Statistics shows that our vessels ' 
op 8 iss vs ally excluded from the British fisheries 


- than when freely admitted to them O sehe 
29. Do the Ree eek fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 


_ any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 


them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 


3064 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? We never dry nets or cure fish on their shores that 
idea applied when the fisheries were carried on insmall boats The right 
to transship cargoes to buy or sell is a right which every American Ves- 
sel has in English ports,as English Vessels have in American ports The 
Dominion Govt under the clause in their law (of preparing to fish) in- 
cluded every transaction of a commercial nature and perpetrated out- 
rage after outrage on American Vessels, The American fishermen have 
never accepted the character of outlaws accorded them and claim equal- 
ity before the law with other citizens engaged in marine business. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? 
Where we shall receive one dollar’s benefit they will receive 20 the only 
matter they have for sale is courtesy 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all de- 
scriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? See Vol- 
ume III 9th Census U States. 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat her- 
ring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market? Yes. Without the markets of the U States the entire 
fishery of the Dominion would be valueless, except for-home consump- 
tion 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. See Vol- 
ume III 9th Census U States 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them an- 
nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Canadian Statis- 
tics will show this. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
Our vessels after the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty paid a License 
fee of 50 cts per Ton. This was the valuation placed upon the inshore 
fisheries by the Dominion Govt. We paid this more to escape annoy- 
ance and capture on the slightest pretext and for the freedom of their 
ports, than for the value of the fish, When it was increased to one and 
afterward 2 Dollars per Ton our vessels could not afford to pay it and 
it was universally repudiated, The Revenue derived could not have 
been over 10,000 Dollars and with all the advantages of free ports, free- 
dom from capture and annoyance, we considered the price of this fishery 
too high and the Dominion failed to obtain Customers Then followed 
the repeal of the license system and the inauguration of a policy which 
in its details we consider little better than Piracy, The value of the 
Dominion Fisheries depend entirely on the action of the U States Govt, 
If admitted to tree Markets in the United States their fisheries become 
prosperous, and as they gain, our fishermen must lose, Without the 
Markets of the United States their fisheries are valueless except for 


4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 5065 


home consumption, and the fishermen of the U States can supply the 

entire demand of our own markets from our own shores and the deep 

sea fisheries without being indebted to them for a Single fish, 500 000 

Dollars yearly will not pay for the advantages they gain by the Treaty 

of Washington. : 
HARVEY KNOWLTON 
EDWARD, A, HORTON 

; STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 1 

'| © County or Essex i 

GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873. Then personally appeared the above 

named Harvey Knowlton and Edward A. Horton, and made oath that 

\ the statements herein made including answer to Question 35. are true 

‘| to the best of their knowledge and belief 

Before me : 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 

Notary Public 


No. 24. 
| [CONFIDENTIAL. | 
; QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
| STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Albion K. Peirce 
2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Ihave been to the Bay of St Law. 
rence Thirty years and also off our own coasts 
3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar intormation ? 

If so, please give some such name. Toe 
_ 4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have doue so? 
Yes . 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
_ provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Menhaden and Mackerel It 
should be understood that in taking mackerel with the hook when we 
get a school alongside biting well we may get our whole fare from that 
school but if we were 5 miles from shore and the Cutters breaks up our 
_ fishing we may not find a school ready to bite well again for a month. 
Mackerel are not like any other fish, one weeks steady catching would 

make a seasons work for us and if the mackerel should lappen to tend 
_off shore and bite well the inshore fishing would be useless to us, bat it 
_ the fleet should get up a biting schooll say just 3 miles from the shore 
the annoyance and breaking up of the fleets fishing would be the trou- 
ble, more timeis spent by the fleet in hunting up the mackerel and find- 
_ ing schools that will bite than in the catching , 
- 6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
~ annually off the coast of your State from the year 1854 to 1872, inclusive! 
= if you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where that infor- 
_ Imation can be procured. 

"7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount at 


chy 


hy ea 


—T 


id value of the 


_— On Ee 
i 5 ne 

1 

2 


“am | 
3066 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
Menhaden are caught only on our coasts, the Canadians have to pay 
6 to 8 dollars per barrel, 4 of the Mackerel caught are caught within 
three miles of our own shores With the same enterprise on their part 
our inshore fisheries are of as much benefit to the Canadians as theirs 
is to us, the Menhaden are used at the rate of 6 Bbls to every 100 Bbls 
Mackerel : 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, aud what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? See Statistics 

9, Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They buy Menhaden 
bait that are caught by American fishermen and they will probably take 
their own bait under the treaty 7 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? The Menhaden fishery 
is quite valuable and also the Mackerel fishery and the Canadians with 
the same enterprise would make our fisheries as valuable to them as 
theirs could be to us 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? The competition of their cheap vessels and crews 
will lower the price of fish 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? The most of their fisheries are 
carried on din doats and usually within 20 miles of the shore some of 
their vessels have been with our fleet on our coasts. 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the At- 
lantie coasts of the British North American provinces, what proportion 
consists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore 
fisheries? The cod fishery is a deep sea fishery entirely. The Mackerel 
fishery is in the bay of St. Lawrence about 1 in 120,000 bbls are caught 
by American fishermen in-shore. 

14, For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the | 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel. 

15. If you state that the in-shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the inshore 
limits? Four-fifths are taken outside the three mile limits when the 
Tishery was free. 

16, Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? yes late in the season mackerel tend in shore, but our vessels 
do better off shore as the crews are kept on the vessels when if we were 
inshore they would be off half the time. . 


17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to tish in Colonial in-shore waters? no. 


| 
| 
; 
| 


_ of that advantage. Yes, every vessel going to the 
_ Western banks stop for supplies and 


as much more, The Trade will amount to nearly if not quite a 
of dollars. 


-AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3067 


18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in. 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? most cea 
tainly wherever the mackerel are fed they remain. 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore. and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Clams & Menhaden mixed. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Tor a season’s trip to the Bay, for Barrels, salt, pro- 
visions, Insurance, & wear and tear, 3,000. - 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and 
manned from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, 
sé far as you are able todo so. If you state that there is any differ- 
ence between the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American 
vessel in these respects, explain what the difference is’and the reason 
for it. not more than one-half the cost of the American vessel The 
American vessel stands about 100 Dollars per ton rigged and ready for 
sea, The Canadian about $50. per ton Their men are fed principally 
on fish and potatoes. Our vessels have the best supplies the market 
affords 

22, Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Branswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? all the fisheries 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? The Mackerel! is all we take a a general 
thing i 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open to 
American fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the cateh 
in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant from the 
shore; please state these facts in detail. nts 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 


cer: 


miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent 


and what is the value? We buy all our bait for all fisheries on the 
Banks Value $200,000,00 which we pay to British fishermen. 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries ! 
If so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, Is it 


not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
gels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 


F ee Aap spots i, eae 
o. and estimate, if you can, the money-va 
De scuaie ven Grand Banks aod 


Bait at a cost of not less 500 Dol- 


larseach, The Mackerel fishermen under the Treaty will aden Se 


8068 AWARD OF THE FiSHERKY COMMISSION. 


27, Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? About 7 or 800 Vessels, 9000 men 
value 24 Millions. During Reciprocity about 4 of the Mackerel were 
taken inshore, say 15 to 20000 bbls. We have done much better off our 
own coasts, For Codfish & Halibut our vessels go to the Grand & 
Browns Banks. All the Herring are bought from British Fishermen. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it consist? 
The cost of taking any kind of fish fully equals their value to the pro- 
ducer all profits are made by the wholesale dealers, In ascertaining the 
value if 20 000 bbls of Mackerel are taken worth $150 000,00 we must 
take from that amount the expense of 400 Vessels and 6000 men at least 
for one months time in taking them. The whole valuation of the shore 
fishery so far as profits are concerned is absolutely nothing 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 


them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 


are those rights, and what do you estimate them, to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? “No we think we had commercial rights in British 
ports but have been denied them. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the Britsh North 
Aen Provinces as to the people of the United States? more to 
them. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. it does. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. refer to 
the Treasury reports. 

3+, If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Don’t know of 
any American vessel ever carrying fish to Canadian ports. 

39. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
livitain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
State it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
The principal reason for satisfaction on the part of the fishermen of the 


| 
I 
| 
| 
| 
I 


! 
| 


kind. Mackerel and Menhaden principally, 


| Valuable to them as what they possess would be 


_known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex. 


AWARD OF TIIE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3069 


United States is the relief from annoyance which the Treaty affords In 
the prosecution of the fishing business the liberty to take fish at all 
points where they may tend will scarcely afford them a living. The 
mackerel fishery is so variable and uncertain that we need all facilities 
for taking them wherever they are as a few days good fishing often 
makes the seasons work, Our own coast furnishes the best Mackerel 
and we have done better there than in the bay, but we like to have the 


_ privilege of following the Mackerel, and the Canadians will be benefited 


aS much as we are in coming on our coasts. 


We tally led A. K. PIERCE, Master of Sch Ww. S. Baker. 
and endorse ; GEO. BEARSE, +‘  & Col. Cook. 
Capt. Peirce} JAMES R. HAMILTON, “ Thorwaldsten. 
statements. (JOHN McDONALD, “ «Electric Flash. 


Sworn to and subscribed this 5th June 1873 before me, 
ADDISON CENTER, Dep. Collector. (Seal.) 


No. 25. | 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


- 1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 


reside? Sixty years, Geo. Norwood of the Firm Geo. Norwood & Son 

Gloucester Mass 
2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 

the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-tisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been engaged in the Fish- 
eries for 25 years. 

' 3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
“who have also had‘the opportunity of obtaining similar information ! 
If so, please give some such name. 

4, A copy of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States , 
meine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? 

es. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially those 
which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the pro- 
“visions of the Treaty of Washington? Codtish, Mackerel. Menhaden. 

6. Can can give a statement of the kinds and quautities of fish taken 


annually off the coast of your State, from the years 1504 to I5¢2, tn. 


elusive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state w bere 
‘that information can be procured. See Inspector Generals Report. on 
‘the Fisheries of Mass. State House, Boston, 

_ 7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and Value of the 
-Awerican fisheries which are to be thrown open to ( anadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of WV ashington ! Please state them 


‘in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
Mackerel has a value 


00 to $20.00 per bbl. With the same degree of 
r Coast Fisheries, would be as 
to our Fishermen. 

are annually taken 


Which fluctuates from $6. 
Enterprise on the part of the Canadians ou 


» 8 What quantity and value of each kind of fish 


3070 AWARD JF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? That can be ascertained accurately only by Statistical 
Returns. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They buy Menhaden 
Bait that are caught by American Fishermen in American Waters, 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be- 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington? The Canadians 
have never pursued any important Fishery on our Coasts. Their own 
shore Fisheries more than equal their Enterprize. 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisher- 
ies cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
tisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? The answer must be Comparitive. They can pro- 
duce Fish at one half the expense of American Fisherman, and it would 
naturally affect the price of Fish 

12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them ? 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? Cod-fishery & Hadibut fishery are entirely a Deep Sea Fishery. 
The Mackerel Fishery is both a shore and deep Sea Fishery, About 
one filth of the Entire Mackel Fishery can be considered as a Shore 
‘ishery. 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheris are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 


the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore’ 


limits? Under the Resprocity Treaty, the Entire British Shore free 
more than {ths were caught outside the 3 mile limits. 


16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American — 


fishermen 'off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No. 

15. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Yes: it is 
a Well established fact founded on experience of over 40 years that in 
one ieee Fishery the larger amount of vessels in the Fleet the bet- 

er for all. 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
What is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
Inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Clams & Menhaden mixed are the best, Clams are found on 
both American & English Shores. Menhaden Jare found only on the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. S071 


American Shore. The value of the Menhaden F 
500 thousand dollars at Gloucester 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing and manning a 
vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of ‘the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to make 
up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning to the 
home port. $3000.00 for a season to the Bay inclading Bait, Barrels 
Salt, Insurance, Provisions and the Wear & Tear. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the same 
questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned from 


ishery is fron 309 to 


_ the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far as you 


are able todo so. If you state that there is any difference between the 
cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in these re- 
spects, explain what the difference is, and the reason for it. Cost of 
American Vessels $100.00 per ton rigged. Cost of British Vessels from 
40 to 60. Cost ofrunning American Vessels per year from 3 to &4000.00. 
Crew’s time 12 Men each one year $3600.00. Canadian Vessels are pro- 
visioned much cheaper than the Americans. their men living priucipally 
on fish and Potatoes ours on the best the Market aftords 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how tong, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? All of them. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are to 
bethrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the Treaty 
of Washington ? The mackerel is the only available Fish to be caught 
by American Vessels. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open to 
American fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the cateh 
in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant trom the 
shore ; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? The Fisherman do not catch any Bait them. 
selves. They buy all from the Shore Fisherman. ; 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 


and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries! If 


so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 


‘not an advantage to the ports of the Domimion to have the fishing-ves 


sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season? 
Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-Value of that 
advantage. American Vessels engaged both in the Deep Sea & Shore 
Fisheries: off the Dominion Coast expend $1600.00 to $1000.00 each for 
Supplies and Refitting amounting to about $400,000, 00 in trade. Many 
of the Inhabitants of the Shores of the Provinces literally depend apou 
the American Fisherman for their Living. aes : ere 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 


. ue ; , antic coasts of the British 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts 0 
; North Mia a Pegvin ces. (excluding Newfoundland,) both without and 


within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are 80 @0- 


_ gaged, what is the value of their tounage, what is the number of men 


employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 


what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 


3072 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? About 400 Vessels were 
engaged in these Fisheries at the time of the Resprocity. At present 
under the restricted Policy many more American Vessels pursue the 
Deep Sea Fisheries for Cod-fish & Halibut since the introduction of Ice 
for the preservation of Fish this business has been more profitable as 
the Fish are sold fresh. Vessels are worth from $60.00 to $70.00 per 
ton. The fish taken average about 23 million dollars. In the most 
favorable season about $100 000 00 bbis are taken in the Bay of St 
Lawrence less than 1th of these are taken within 3 mile of the Shore. 
This is the entire and only fishery used by Americans. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added 
to the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine 
miles of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it 
consist? Any actual profit on the Fishing Business never had any ex- 
istance our Vessels have caught more Mackerel when entirely excluded 
from the Inshore Limit, 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 

any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, in 
the aggregate? No Wealways had the right although deprived of it, 
to land Fish or other merchandise in Bond to be transsbipped to the U. 
8. In this as in all others Our Government have not protected us. 
_ 30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States ? 
Vastly more to the Provinces in every particular 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

2. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market? Most certainly Fat Mackerel shipped to warm Climates 
would have nothing left but the Bones before they were sold. 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the 
United States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to 
be made free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please 
state them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Refer 
to the Treasury Reports. 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada | 


on fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

30: The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
Which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
State it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
The simple Privilage of fishing within the In-shore limits.of the Domin- 
ion has under any Circumstances a very small value. The total miscon- 
ception of the value and profits of the Fishing business held by Parties 
not practically interested has given an assumed value to the fish while 
in the Water, The investments in the Fishing business, including Ves- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 38078 


sels, Wharves, Ware-houses, Provisions, Lines, Nets, Sails, Riggi 
Boats, Salt, Barrels, and the time of the men i rasp Dg 
same rates of pay as that obtained by regular Seamen or practical oper- 
atives on the Land in any other business, has never yet or never will 
return more than 6 per ct upon the whole amount. After paying 4 per 
ct on the investment of Capital and for the time of the 4 fe and the 
Wear & Tear and Depreciation of the Vessels, there will be no margin 
left. for the purchase of Fish in the Water. It should be remembered 
in dealing with this subject that we should confine the value of Fish or 
Mackerel in the hands of the Producer. That the values attached to 
Fish as appearing in Prices currant, are nearly double the value of the 
Fish in their raw state before landing. What is cheiftly the desire of 
the American fisherman is to be protected from the continual anvoy- 
ance. The danger of Capture upon the slightest reasons and the well- 
known hostility of the Dominion Government, from which they have 
never been afforded any protection, even from our own Government. 
The bounties paid by the U. S. have been more than sufficient to estab- 
lish the entire Fishing interest. With these withdrawn and our Mar- 
kets open to Canadian Fishermen free of duties who can produce the 
fish for less than 4 the cost of American fisherman the Fisheries of the 
U.S. are in danger of entire destruction. 
GEO NORWOOD: 


I hereby endorse the above statements. . 
. JAMES S AYER 
Firm of Dennis & Ayer engaged in Fishing business 35 years 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS ag 
CoUNTY OF ESSEX P 
GLOUCESTER June 21st 


Subscribed and sworn to. Before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
' Notary Public 
No. 26. 


[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO- 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what townand State do you re- 
side? Andrew Leighton Aged 52 Gloucester Massachusetts, 
2. What opportunities have you bad for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have fished in Gulf of St. Law- 
rence during a period of twenty-eight years for Mackerel, also have been 
engaged in other kinds of fishing in the meantime, Since, ‘for the last 
five years, have carried on business as owner and fitter. 
3. Can you give the names of other persons In your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ! If so, 
_ pleaseto give some such name. Most of the members of firms (tn the k ish. 
ing Business) in Gloucester have been personally engaged in fishing in the 
‘Bay of St. Lawrence. I would mention the names of Capt Benjamin 
Bearse, UC eeves. a 
: * 4, ere the isa between Great Britain and the United States 
= 193 F. 


3074 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have examined the same. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under tha 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Codfish Halibut. Haddock. 
Polluck Hake—Menhaden. Mackerel, Swordfish &c. 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inelu- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state 
where that information can be procured. Have never seen any es- 
timates, the quantity is enormous, protably 300 000 Bbls Mackerel Mass 
& Maine Meuhaden probably 200,000 Dollars Cod haddock pollock, 
1,500,000 Dollars 

7. If youare able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 
see as above 


Mackerel “ $1 000,000 
Menhaden $2 000,000 


8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
otf the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? The only fish taken inside the three mile limit on the 
Canadian coast, is Mackerel. The Herring taken at the Magdalenes are 
already free to us. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? They purchase bait 
in large quantities for Mackerel. 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than - 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? This will be entirely 
owing to their enterprise 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extentannually? Probably not. Except their vessels. costing less. they 
could carry on the business profitably when we could not 

12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
pee of men employed upon them? None that I know of at pres- 
en 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 


eries? Fully nine tenths of the Fishing is done outside the three mile * 


limit 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the in- | 
shore fisheries? Mackerel 

15, If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly | 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? The advantage to us of being able to fish inside the three mile | 


"—_—— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 30 
. > 15 


limit is, that we are able to f 
C ollow the Mackerel w 
them, the proportion canuot be esas pneas herever we can catch 
with the season Should noe Enikanece eter ape because it varys 
are caught inshore e tenth of the Mackere! 
. Is not much the larger quantity : 
fishermen off the coasts of ered eee caught by American 
limits; and in the summer season ar ie taken outside the in-shore 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Sai y, are not mackerel generally 
shore? This is true, yet late in the seemed Lawrence, and not within 
the great body of mackerel is usually found pe ber tescngs a 
17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by pureiteh rom the shore. 
Sesh ia Colonial in-shore waters? No they ale American fishermen 
gh. Are not more fish caught by Gélaaial aaharm : | eae 
shore, alongside a fleet of American nahi ae when fishing in. 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishi a) ie sl tales 
tainly true, and it saves the Canadian boat Poe ldap ! This is cer- 
they have the Banc COP AEM bni echt: oo rene a large sum as 
eye Se, flomaalves 1 which otherwise they would 
_ 19. What is the best bait for th 
b ball e mackerel, and where is it princi 
ae! How much of it is taken within three miles of tt Ashes get 
what is the annual value to the United States, o bated sauteed 
ie ease any be. totake: anch’ batt ae re t it alias provinces, 
Pohagan. Bait is best. Is taken on Coasts of Mai mi “htt! the shore? 
Most of it is taken within three miles of shore 1 sone tp pepreepepracon 
gate value, think about $2 000,000 oes noe eae eee 
_ 20. Please state as to ea i i i 3 
i district, the cost of nicee peor ee carried on from your State 
vessel Gas oanwitieibon, acu auite Ht Pee ei rapereraapele, a 
State, as far as possible, in detail the eler rage leugth of the cruise. 
, e elements which got " 
cost of taking and deliverin ‘ oie ose Ge toe 
g a full cargo and of returni 
port. The average cost of running a fishi ee ee 
g a fishing-vessel at Gloucester | 
8 to 4000 Dollars per year for Salt Barrels Bait Ice alia paar z sheen 
2? lat value of Time, $3,600,00 sa fa oa ones 
_ 21. When you have fully answered i 
: question 20, please answe . 
eon fs aceon tabi Mais age out, equipped, f arilsliell ees 
1 of Canada, including Prince Edwe : 
ad youare able todo so. If you state that there ts we ates be 
the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the A merican vessels in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. The 
ee vessels are not so well built more soft wood is need An 
* ee fishing vessel cost new all rigged ready for sea 100 Dollars 
og aygiteenenres not over 55 Dollars per ton Canadians live cheaper 
potatoes We cannot get crews to go in our vessels unless 
Bhey have as good as the markets afford j 
* . “Riggs you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
Pi eries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
oe Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
age Am acquainted as stated in article second with ull the fish- 
4 a What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fisherman under the provisions of the 
= oy of Washington? Mackerel. 
ek Ee nee state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
#854 504 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are to be thrown open to 
gpmerican fishermen ; also the amount and the annual value of the catch 


x 


= 


3076 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant from the 
shore; please state these facts in detail. . 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? Our Cod & Halibut catchers bound on Voyages 
to the Grand & Western Banks, buy bait on N. Scotia & Cape Breton 
shore to a considerable Extent say 200 000 Dollars per year 

26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of the 
Dominion of Canada, including -bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, and 
various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If so, 
in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it not an 
advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-vessels of 
the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season? 
Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that 
advantage. They purchase supplies in large quantities especially in 
Gut of Canso, Halifax, also, at Charlottetown & Georgetown, P. E. I. 
The Mackerel Fleet usually purchase supplies, for vessel & and crew 
amounting from $300, to $600, each vessel. 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing-ves- 
sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? About 400 vessels. 
averaging 60 Tons & 14 men Costing from $100.00 to $125.00 per Ton 
New Measure Mackerelling 200 Bank Fishing 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 


sist? When mackerel are found inshore it is generally at the mouths~ 


of rivers or creeks, and unless we can go there to catch them, the priv- 
ilege is not worth much to us ‘ 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? They will have no more rights than they were really 
entitled to before. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British North 
American Provinces as to the people of the United States? It seems 
to be the unanimous opinion of American Fishermen that the effect of 
the Treaty will be better for them than for us. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 


herring, and tor all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. It does. 


33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United | 


States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. | 


. 


. 
rs 
i a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8077 


34. If you know what amount of duties is annual id in © 
on fish and fish-oil imported from the United ashe Lateline 
made free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them an- 
nually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights In 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, 
please state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in re- 
spect of it. 

ANDREW LEIGHTON 
. WALTER M FALT 
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 
YOUNTY OF ESSEX SS 
YLOUCESTER, June 21st 1873 
Subscribed and sworn to, 
Betore me : 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
: Notary Public , 
WO; 27. 


[CONFIDENTIAL. | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 
POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? W CG Wonson of Gloucester Essex Co Mass 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 

the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
 eatch of the different kinds of fish? I have been practically engaged 
in the fishing business for fourteen years Am now conducting general 
fishing business fitting eight vessels 
3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ! 
If so, please give some such name. ee 
_ 4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the | nited States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed, Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so! 


ve 
5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Mackerel Menhaden Cod- 
fish Pollock Haddock Hake Herring 
6. Can you give a statement of the u a 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, 
sive? If you can do this, please do so; and, if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. See reports of Ins General of the 
_ State Mass | {th 
_ 7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian reopen 
‘under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington! Please pe kind. 
_ in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of P 


kinds and quantities of fish taken 
inelu- 


3078 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Our Shore fisheries are worth some years more than the Canadians: 
Mackerel are an erratic fish, our shore Mackerel are worth 5 Dollars per 
Bbls. more than the Bay Mackerel, The Menhaden fishery entirely a 
shore fishery and are taken for oil Bait Guano &c is worth from 2 to 
£4000,000 00 Mackerel Fishery about the same though liable to vary 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? See Canadian Statistics See U States Statistics 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State; and, if so, to what extent and value? Pogie Bait is ob- 
tained by them by purchase 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in be- 
ing able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and 
cure their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction 
than that contained in the Treaty of Washington? They would save 
the value of bait, say $75,000, but they do not do business as we do 

11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and, if so, in what manner, and to 
what extent annually? Do not think it would affect us other than they 
will have cheap vessels, & there will be some competition 

12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Do not know not many 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish- 
eries? Principally Deep Sea fishing until late in the fall not more than 
3) part would be taken in shore including all fisheries 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 


chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 


within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? Should not think that more than one sixth part are 
taken within three miles of the shore. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits ; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial inshore waters? No 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
uantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing aloie? There is. 
The more vessels the better 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
What is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, a8 the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore ? Clams & Mauhaden; Manhaden are found only on the Ameri- 
can Shores, : 


20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 


State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- | 


—_— 


AW : 
ARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3079 


ning a vessel for carrying it : 
: on, est ing it by 
Bie cruise. State, as far as ig berm by the average length of 
make up the cost of taking and delivering ; il the elements which go to 
#:the home port. Pogie Fishing requires : full cargo and of returning 
at a cost of from 300 to 50 Juires & crew of from 10 to 15 me 
o 500 per month, Mack ‘ishi eer igs 
ane troll 12 16°20 wien; Coat. aboub th » Mac erel Fishing requires a 
jew of about 13 men, Cost including coe: _ Cod Fishing requires a 
#400 per month. g salt fitting Insurance &c. about 
. When you have ft 
2 d ull y ; ‘ 
same questions as to vessale Aiea out. pels na 20, please answer the 
from the Dominion of Canada, weludic | ie » furnished, and manned 
as you are able to do so. If you state . ince Edward Island, so far 
tween the cost of the Canadi j iat there is any difference be- 
ian and the cost of 
these respects, explain what the Aiiaece st of the American vessel in 
dont know the expense of fitting Canadian cao me Tr nie aha 
they could be fitted and run at least one thi sels but should think that 
Mcesela could: e third cheaper than American 
22. Are you acquaint 
f : ainted, and for how lor in w 
with the fisheries on the coasts of Nova gaan gti W hat capacity, 
: Ae rince Edward Island, or with either and if ei ae a 
: 93 So a, I am well acquainted with them pect alee ma 
: at kind of fish frequent the waters of tl bi 
to be thrown open to American fishermen und 108€ coasts which are 
ares of Washington? Mackerel Halibut & Cod fi oe eee 
oA, 4 - c so 
ar Please state in detail the amount and the annt I val Say 
4 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheri i sphere eeAb h 
SESE IS of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
aaiGtiin adj lane j iene asi okao and the annual value of the 
u 1 ‘ t j i 
sales the shore; please state tiene sats dca, D erica — 
° . ONU KI f 
ees reer fom a ag tony 
: ominion of Canada? If phi ; 
and what is the value? Th i 0: 0 ee 
ey sometimes buy their Bait of leak 
ia ene i a value of not less tee $200,000 By uy their Bait of the Cana- 
7 sp on a ne American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
Sd Sea ater reeks peer hae ice, salt, barrels, provisions 
: e use of the men aged i ian 
We a6. ti wilat engaged in the fisheries? 
J ports, and to what extent? And, if that i i 
it not an advantage to the ports of ? And, if that is the case, is 
é s of the Dominion to have tl 
PAaaelaar the Tnited Stat ports ot 1ave the fishing- 
es in their neighborhood during tl shi 
Eccanne“Repiath why ib i Is ood during the fishing 
y it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money- 
| ee of that advantage. Yes. Our vessels often refit in the ts s 
te le at an expense of from $100 to &600, 
. Have you any knowledge of how many United St 
any U “l States fishing- 
tamed Moai engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of as 
Sith ; orth American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both 
see out and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many ves 
Aad oe engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the 
Gaara t ris of men employed annually on such vessels, what: sorts of fish 
ah aken there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and 
: at is the proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the 
phe of such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and 
- Rhial Piel cone outside of the three-mile limit? About 600 or 700 
are annually engaged they average : wD , ; 
Erout 8000 men, y engaged they average ibout 65 tons employing 
i ee eet eae of value, if any, is, in your judgment, added to 
2 p s of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 


| 


of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? In case we are deprived of fishing at the mouth of the Rivers 
the Mackerel Fishery would be rendered almost valueless, 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washing- 
ton any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to re-- 
pack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, 
what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth an- 
nually, in the aggregate? No the Canadians are more benefited than 
we are. 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? It 
is more benefit to the Canadians than to the American Fishermen. 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States ? 

32. Forall No. land No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat herring, 
and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the only 
market. Yes. No fat mackerel are carried south of Hatteras, they are 
all consumed in the Northern Middle and Western States 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 

States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. The statistics 
will show think about from 200 to $300,000.00 The importations would 
be doubled by free markets. 
_ 34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to the 
United States. Ifyou know anything bearing upon this which subject you 
have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please state it as 
fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. The 
United States should have claimed at least a half million yearly as the 
fisheries that are to be affected depend solely on the U States markets 
for their value and we get no advantages except the release from annoy- 
ance. Our Mackerel fleet can take all the Mackerel that is wanted for 
home consumption off our own coasts, and we are simply building up a 
foreign fishery which is valueless without our markets for the privilege 
of using British harbors, and giving them our trade which is worth 10 
times more to them than any fisheries are to us. 

WM. C. WONSON 


3080 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS ) |. 
County oF Essex ee 
GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 
Then personally appeared the above named William C. Wonson aud 
made oath that the foregoing statements by him subscribed are true 
Before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Publie 


—_— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8081 
No. 28, 
[CONFIDENTIAL | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITE 
STATES. THE UNITED 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Geo Friend & Co. Gloucester Mass. : 

2. What opportunities have you bad for becoming acquainted with the 
American and Canadian Atlantic sea- fisheries, and the value of the eateh 
of the different kinds of fish? Have caught them, cured them, & sold 
them, now prosecuting the fishing Business. 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood who 
have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information? If so, 
please give some such name. Could give the names of 40 Fishing 
Firms, but you have probably sent them these questions, 

4, A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex 
eg articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so! We 

ave. 

3d. What kinds of fish freqnent the waters of your State, especially those 
which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the pro 
visions of the Treaty of Washington? All Kinds that we have the 
right to take upon their shores, Macker] & Menhaden in particular 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1572, inclusive ! 
If you can do this please do so; and if not please state where that in- 
formation can be procured. Can get all the required information from 
the reports of the General Inspector, of our own and other fishing States, 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisher- 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Please state 
them in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. Mackerel and Porgies are taken on our shores, the Porgie being 
entirely our own shore fishery, our shore Mackerel are worth, and will 
bring more right along, than the Bay Macker!. they seem to be a 
better fish everyway, and if there is any advantage it is in favor of the 


- Canadian fishermen almost in the proportion of 2 to 1. 


8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 
off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 
of Washington? You had better consult the statistics of both countries, 
and you will learn the full quantity & value of the whole thing, 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? Only by, purchasing 
as we term them Slivers or Porgie Bait, slivered ready for use. . 
~ 10. Whatis the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 


_ that contained in the Treaty of Washington? same as their fisheries 


are to us. : 
11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 


_€ause any detriment or hinderance to the protitable pursait of these 
-¥ 


3082 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and towhat | 
extent annually? We think it will injure our business a great deal, by 
their running cheaper vessels, & fitting cheaper can undersell us every | 
time Twill result in great loss to the American fishermen 

12, What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the - 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage, and value, and the 
number of men employed upou them? We dont think there are any 

13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion consists 
of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fisheries? 
,*, are caught off shore, and some vessels dont take a fish inshore of 
any kind. 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel—Cod and Halibut. 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits? The Mackerel which are taken inshore do not Amount to but a 
very small part of the vessels trips, they are only taken late in the 
season and then about one half perhaps of our fleet are at home and do 
not return to the Bay. Take off the annoyance of being chased by cut- 
ters, and having to keep watch of an imaginary 3 mile line, and We 
dont think our fishermen would care one cent wether they caught a 
mackerel inside 3 miles. We dont consider they are worth one dollar. 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
_ fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? Yes Thrible. 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 

to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? Well we guess not much. Bene- 
fitted a great deal. ; 
_ 18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing 
in-shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large ° 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? The chances 
are twice as good. 

19, What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Clams and Porgies, or Menhaden. Porgies are caught only on 
our own shore. 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries earried on from your State 
or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and manning 
a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of the 
cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Pogie fisbing not over 12 men, principally 10 Cost- 
Ing about S900, per month, Mackerelling, not over 20 men. will Aver 
age. 15 men. Cost trifle more. Cod—12 men Cost about same as 
Porgie fishing. 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
Same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
trom the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so fat 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- || 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3083 


tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel (n 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. We 
all Know that Canadians can fit build and run their vessels cheaper 
than we can, but how much cheaper we are unable to say. We think 
we should place the matter about right to say 4 cheaper than we can 
build, man and run our vessels. And we are confident we have placed 
the figure low. 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? Well acquainted with all of them, 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisious ef the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel--Cod & Halibut. 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. You must consult 
statistics again, for we.cant give you the desired information. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada? If so, to what exténet, 
and what is the value? Buy lots of Bait from them, and pay from 2 to 
3 hundred thousand dollars. 
| 26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
| the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 

and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries? If 

so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it not 

. an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-vessel« 

of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing season ! 

Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value of that 

advantage. Our vessels often go in to their different Ports, refit, and 

buy everything for the voyage, and pay the Dominion merchants all the 
way from $50 to $800, Have paid this Amt.ourselves, for one vessel. 

27. Have.you any knowledge of how many United States fishin.- 

vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the 

British North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland.) both 

without and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vesse's 

are so engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the num ber 

of men employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken 

there, what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what ts the 

proportion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 

such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 

amount taken outside of the three-mile-limit ! 600,—60 Cous—s,000, 
men. Statistics will give you the rest. ' 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, In your judgment, addec ie 

the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three, marine mi es 

of the coast; whence is such profit derived ; and in what does it con: 

sist? None whatever are added to the profits, aes 

29, Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of W ashington 

‘any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, se pane 

them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, ns 

are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be ise erage he 

- in the aggregate? Canadian fishermen reap Double the benifit that ts 


American fishermen do. 


3084 — AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States? Answer 
same as Question 29 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all 
descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? Cant 
Sav. 

32, For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for ali No. 1 salmon. does not the United States afford the 
only market. Fat mackerel find a ready and about the only market in 
the U.S. ; 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty ef Washington, please state them 
annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Statistics will 
show you the whole thing, we should think $250,000 was about right 
And importations would more than dowble up by free markets. 

34. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
aud by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Dont know 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
Our impression in relation to fishing inside the three mile limit is simply 
this. It will be a detriment instead of a benifit. One reason why it 
will be so is that our vessels would be likely to lie in the harbors of 
Port Hood, and along their coast, when they ought to be out on the fish- 
ing ground. To take fish inside the three mile limit is of no value to 
the American fishermen. It is only when our fishermen are taking fish, 
say from 4 to 5 miles from the land, of being bored to death by cutters, 
sent out of their harbors when they seek tbem for shelter from the 
storms which frequent that coast, of not being permitted to buy Any- 
thing except wood and water, and hardly that that this whole trouble 
lies. Our fishermen only want protection in this matter, and the mack- 
erel they would take inside the three mile mile line. we would stake our 
reputation, would not much more than pay for the Bait they used. 


Attest to the foregoing. 
GEO FRIEND & CO. 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 
COUNTY OF ESSEX S8. 8. 
GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 
Then personally appeared John J. Somes and for himself and the other 
members of the firm of Geo. Friend & Co. made oath that the foregoing 
statemeuts subscribed in the firm’s name are true Before me 
(Seal.) , DAVID W. LOW 
; Notary Public 


* AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3085 
No. 29. 
[CONFIDENTIAL. | 
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 


POUNDED TO ON BEHALF OF T INITE 
apy tg HE UNITED 


1. What is your name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Frederic Gerring Gloucester Mass : 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? I have been practically engaged 
in the fisheries 35 years & now conducting the general fishing business 
with 7 vessels 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar inform ation ? 
If so, please give some such name. Alfred Low & Uo, F. G. Wonson 
& 8S. G. Wonson 2d. 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex. 
oe articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done sot: [ 

ave. 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
oa of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel, Cod, Herring, 

ogies, 

6. Can you give a statement of the kinds and quantities of fish takea 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1554 to 1872, incla- 
sive? If you can do this please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. I would refer you to the reports of 
the Inspector General of the State, 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of 
the American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fisher- 
men under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington! Please state 
them in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each 
kind. not able to state 

8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken 
by Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters 


_ off the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the Treaty 


of Washington? Bureau of Statistics Washington D. ©, 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in The waters of 
your State? and if so, to what extent and value? for all their Bait : 
for the mackerel fisheries. coral : : 

10. What is the probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and care 
their fish on the coasts of your State, without any other restriction than 


_ that contained in the Treaty of Washington ? unable to State 


t 


extent annually? No, except more competition 


11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to oar in-shore fisheries 
eause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable parsait of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen ; and if so, in what manner, and to what 


12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 


- fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 


_ humber of men employed upon t 
* 
= 


hem? Should say about 15 vessels — 
13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 


ce 


3086 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore 
fisheries? Should think about 80 per cent are deep sea fisheries. 

14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in-shore fisheries? Mackerel late in the year 

15. If you state that the in shore fisheries are pursued wholly or 
chiefly for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken 
within the in-shore limits, and what proportion is taken outside of the 
in-shore limits? not one tenth part of the mackerel taken at the Bay of 
St. Lawrence are taken within the inshore limits 

16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by American 
fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in-shore 
limits; and in the summer season especially, are not mackerel generally 
found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not within 
shore? YES 

17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? No. 

18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone? Yes - 

19. What is the best bait for the mackerel, and where is it principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of the 
shore? Pogie or Menhaden, an American fish, taken off Coast of U.S. 
Value of this fishery about $1,000,000 yearly 

20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
nmg a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State as far as possible, in detail the elements which go to 
make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo and of returning 
to the home port. Pogie fishing, Crew 10 men cost of Salt Bbls, pro- 
visions &ce $400, time 3 weeks mackerl fishing about the same Cost of 
a voyage to Grand Banks of a Schooner of 80 tons about $2700, for a 
term of 2 mos or 10 weeks 

21. When you have fully answered question 20,'please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able to do so. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and the reason for it. 
About one half what it costs to fit an American vessel 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, 
with the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Que- 
bec, or Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which 
of these fisheries? 20 years all of them 

23, What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Codfish—Halibut & Mackerel 

24. Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
from 1854 to 1872 inclusive) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown 
open to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of 
the catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles dis- 
tant from the shore; please state these facts in detail. Cannot give the 
data required Should think that the Deep Sea fisheries three miles 
from Shore were worth $2000,000 00 less cost of taking them 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8087 


25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada! If so, to what extent 
and what is the value? Yes $200,000 worth a year . 
26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various article for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries! If 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And, if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. Yes, 10 years ago about all of the American fleet 
refitted in the Straits of Canso, N.S, and their trade was a great as- 
sistance to the natives there, say $500,000 
27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing. ves 

sels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the British 
North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 


employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 


what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro 

portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of such 
catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the amount 
taken outside of the three-mile limit? 700 Vessels, total tonnage, 
455,000 tons, costing about $60 per ton about 10,000 men employed and 
the value of the products of the fisheries of this district for the year 
ending Dec. 31, 1872 was valued at $3,437,000,—Gross. 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your judgment. added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish within three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con- 
sist? not much, not over 5 per cent 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually, 
in the aggregate? no, I consider we had these right always 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clauses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States! Yes 
SIR 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of al! 


. descriptions which are annually shipped to the United States? No date 


L 


a tne ne 


at hand 


32. For all No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. No, mey of their fish are exported direct to foreign coun: 
tries other than the U.S, oe et 

33. If you know what amount of duties 1s annually paid to the Unite 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 


free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
‘them annually, and by classes, from 1554 to 15+”, inclusive. 


Cannot 


say ae ree ee 
34. If you know what amount of duties Is annually paid in Canada rs 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 


- free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Cannot Say 


35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 


3088 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 


GLOUCESTER, MASS. 
June 11, 1873, 
FRED. GERRING 
part owner of Six fishing Vessels, 20 years engaged in the fishing 
business, 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS an 
COUNTY OF ESSEX : 
GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873 Then personally appeared the above 
named Frederic Gerring and made oath that the foregoing statements 
by him subscribed, are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. 


Before me 
(Seal.) : DAV ED, W.-LOW: 
Notary Public. 
No. 30. 
[CONFIDENTIAL | 


QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE FISHERIES TO BE PRO. 
POUNDED TO , ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1. What is you name and age, and in what town and State do you 
reside? Frederick G. Wonson of Gloucester, Essex Co, Mass 

2. What opportunities have you had for becoming acquainted with 
the American and Canadian Atlantic sea-fisheries, and the value of the 
catch of the different kinds of fish? Have been practically engaged, 


both as Fisherman, and owner for the past twenty two years, am now . 


fitting fourteen vessels 

3. Can you give the names of other persons in your neighborhood 
who have also had the opportunity of obtaining similar information ? If 
so, please give some such name. F Gerring Walen & Co and others 

4. A copy of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, 
known as the Treaty of Washington, is hereto annexed. Will you ex- 
amine articles 18 to 22 inclusive, and state that you have done so? I 
have examined articles 18 to 22 

5. What kinds of fish frequent the waters of your State, especially 
those which are to be thrown open to the Canadian fishermen under the 
provisions of the Treaty of Washington? Mackerel, Herring Pogies, 
Codfish ec, 

6. Can you give astatement of the kinds and quantities of fish taken 
annually off the coast of your State from the years 1854 to 1872, inclu- 
sive? If you can do this, please do so; and if not, please state where 
that information can be procured. see Report Inspector General of 
Tish State of Mass 

7. If you are able to do so, will you state the amount and value of the 
American fisheries which are to be thrown open to Canadian fishermen 
under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington ? Please state them 
in detail, showing the different kinds of fish, and the value of each kind. 

Shore, Menhadn fishery $2,000,000.00 ) 


Shore, Mackerel fishery $1,500,000 5 TOSS: 


, “ 


| 
| 
> 


— 


The Mackerel caught off the New England Coast have been wort 

. at ape more per Barrel than the Bay of St Lawrence of sine 
8. What quantity and value of each kind of fish are annually taken by 

Canadian fishermen, and what by American fishermen, in the waters off 

the coasts which are to be thrown open to competition by the . 

; | petition by the Treaty of 
Washington ? The Canadians have not engaged in the American fish. 
eries to any extent they have hardly had enterprise sufficient to take 
the fish in ther own waters. 

9. Do Canadian fishermen procure bait or supplies in the waters of 
per State? and if so, to what extent and value? Pogie Bait is ob. 
ined by them 
10. What isthe probable annual value to Canadian fishermen in being 
able to procure bait, to land and dry their nets, and to repack and cure 
their fish on the coasts of your State, withont any other restriction than 
that contained in the Treaty of Washington? Their own enterprise will 
determine that 
11. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our in-shore fisheries 
cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these 
fisheries by our own fishermen; and if so, in what manner, and to what 
extent annually? Do not think that it would affect us materially other 
than they will have cheap vessels & there will be more competition. 
- 12. What number of Canadian vessels and boats are engaged in the 
fisheries of your State, and what are their tonnage and value, and the 
number of men employed upon them? Do not know 
/ 13. Of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen off the Atlantic 
coasts of the British North American Provinces, what proportion con- 
sists of the deep-sea fisheries, and what proportion of the in-shore fish. 
eries? Principally deep-sea fishing until late in the fall say 4% is oat. 
side of 5 miles. 
. 14. For what description of fish do American fishermen pursue the 
in shore fisheries? Mackerel . 
_ 15. If you state that the in-shore fisheries are pursued wholly or chiefly 
for mackerel, please state what proportion of mackerel is taken within 
the in-shore limits and what proportion is taken outside of the in-shore 
limits. Should not think that more than one fifth part are taken withia 
three mile limit, or about from 12 to 20,000 Bbls 
- 16. Is not much the larger quantity of mackerel caught by Ameri- 
ean fishermen off the coasts of British America taken outside the in- 
shore limits; and in the summer season especially are not mackerel 
generally found on the banks, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and not 
within shore? Yes; on banks Bradly and Orphan, and around the 
Magdalen Islands ; 
. 17. Are Colonial fishermen injured by permitting American fishermen 
to fish in Colonial in-shore waters? I do not think they are on the con- 
trary, I believe they are benefitted ; : 
- 18. Are not more fish caught by Colonial fishermen, when fishing in- 
shore, alongside a fleet of American fishing-vessels, from which large 
‘quantities of bait are thrown out, than when fishing alone! There is 
-. 19. What is the best bait for mackerel, and where Is It principally 
taken? How much of it is taken within three miles of the shore, and 
‘what is the annual value to the United States, or to the British Prov- 
~ inces, as the case may be, to take such bait within three miles of 
‘Shore? Pogies—which are taken on the New England shores only— 
_ think the value of the Pogie fishery cannot be less than two millions of 
_ dollars. « 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8089 


3090 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


20. Please state as to each class of fisheries carried on from your 
State or district, the cost of fitting out, equipping, furnishing, and man- 
ning a vessel for carrying it on, estimating it by the average length of 
the cruise. State, as far as possible, in detail the elements which go 
to make up the cost of taking and delivering a full cargo, and of re- 
turning to the home port. Generally the crews of the Pogie catchers 
consist of about 19 men each—time about 3 weeks per trip—cost $400— 
Bank fishing $400 per month—this includes barrels, salt, cost of filling, 
Insurance, &c, Mackerel fishing 

21. When you have fully answered question 20, please answer the 
same questions as to vessels fitted out, equipped, furnished, and manned 
from the Dominion of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, so far 
as you are able todoso. If you state that there is any difference be- 
tween the cost of the Canadian and the cost of the American vessel in 
these respects, explain what the difference is and thereason for it. 
Should think that the Canadians Could prosecute th e fisheries at one- 
half the expense we could—owing to their much cheaper vessels— 
cheaper men and cheaper grub, 

22. Are you acquainted, and for how long, and in what capacity, with 
the fisheries on the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, or 
Prince Edward Island, or with either, and if either, with which of these 
fisheries? Am acquainted with all kinds. 

23. What kind of fish frequent the waters of those coasts which are 
to be thrown open to American fishermen under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington? Mackerel principally 

24, Please state in detail the amount and the annual value (say from 
1854 to 1872, inclusive,) of the fisheries which are so to be thrown open 
to American fishermen; also the amount and the annual value of the 
catch in the adjacent waters which are more than three miles distant 
from the shore; please state these facts in detail. 

25. Do American fishermen procure bait in the waters within three 
miles of the coast of the Dominion of Canada; if so, to what extent, 
and what is the value? American fishermen buy bait of Canadians to 


a large extent, the value of which must be considerable, say $200,000. . 


26. Do not the American fishermen purchase supplies in the ports of 
the Dominion of Canada, including bait, ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
and various articles for the use of the men engaged in the fisheries; if 
so, in what ports, and to what extent? And,if that is the case, is it 
not an advantage to the ports of the Dominion to have the fishing-ves- 
sels of the United States in their neighborhood during the fishing sea- 
son? Explain why it is so, and estimate, if you can, the money-value 
of that advantage. Théy do purchase supplies to a great extent— 
should think the fleet would average each $500, at Charlottetown, P. E. 
I., Canso Strait, and others, and is of immense value to these places. 
During reciprocity nearly all the American fleets refitted at those ports, 
in some Cases amounting to $1000 or $1500, each vessel 

27. Have you any knowledge of how many United States fishing- 
vessels yearly engage in the fisheries off the Atlantic coasts of the Brit- 
ish North American Provinces, (excluding Newfoundland,) both without 
and within the three-mile limit? If so, state how many vessels are so 
engaged, what is the value of their tonnage, what is the number of men 
employed annually on such vessels, what sorts of fish are taken there, 
what is the annual value of all the fish so caught, and what is the pro- 
portion, or probable proportion, in your judgment, of the amount of 
such catch taken within three miles of the British coast, and of the 
amount taken outside of the three-mile limit? Should think about 700 


| 


i: 
i ee. 


_ any thing 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 5091 


vessels are engaged with a total tonnage 420.000 ‘ } 
each worth about $60, per ton—82,520,000, ; Ue ate ee 

28. What percentage of value, if any, is, in your jndgment, added to 
the profits of a voyage by the privilege to fish withiu three marine miles 
of the coast; whence is such profit derived; and in what does it con. 
sist? Do not think the privilege to fish within 3 miles is of any value 
Official annoyance is what we complain of i 

29. Do the American fishermen gain under the Treaty of Washington 
any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack 
them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs before ; if so, what 
are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth annually 
in the aggregate? I think we do not gain any rights of any value and 
the Canadians will be greatly benefitted by the treaty. P 

30. Is not the Treaty of Washington, so far as the fishing clanses are 
concerned, more, or quite as, beneficial to the people of the British 
North American Provinces as to the people of the United States! The 
Canadians will have the most benifit 

31. What is the amount and value of colonial cargoes of fish of all de- 
spillage which are annually shipped to the United States?! Do not 

now 

32. For all No. land No. 2 mackerel, for the larger part of the fat 
herring, and for all No. 1 salmon, does not the United States afford the 
only market. It does 

33. If you know what amount of duties is annually paid to the United 
States on fish and fish-oil imported from Canada, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, please state 
them annually, and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. Cannot, 

34. If you know what amonnt of duties is annually paid in Canada on 
fish and fish-oil imported from the United States, which are to be made 
free under the provisions of the said Treaty, please state them annually, 
and by classes, from 1854 to 1872, inclusive. See U States Statistics 

35. The object of these inquiries is to ascertain whether the rights in 
respect of fishing, and fishermen, and fish, which were granted to Great 
Britain by the Treaty of Washington, are or are not a just equivalent 
for the rights in those respects which were granted by said Treaty to 
the United States. If you know anything bearing upon this subject 
which you have not already stated in reply to previous questions, please 
state it as fully as if you had been specially inquired of in respect of it. 
The markets of the United States are the foundation of all the profits 


_of the Mackerel fisheries to the Canadians Without them this fishery 


is value less: The Fish caught by our vessels,on the Ocean Banks are 


generally very large, These fish are larger than the shore fish caught 
on the Ganadian coast which are smaller and better fitted for the West 


Indies and Mediteranean trade, The Georges Codfish always bring a 
larger price than any other consequently the shore fisheries for ¢ od fish 
are of little value If we are to be excluded from the mouths of 
Rivers in taking Mackerel the Mackerel fishery also will hot amount to 


FREDERIC G. WONSON, of Joun F, Wonson & Co 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS | Sa 


COUNTY OF ESSEX : a 
GLOUCESTER June 21st 1873. 


_ Subscribed and sworn to, by above named Frederic G. W onsoa 


Before ne ; 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


3092 AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 
No. 31. 


I Charles H. Pew of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts, being duly sworn doth depose and say; 

I am forty years old and have been engaged in the fishing business 
ever since | entered my fathers store as a boy of fourteen years old. 
Our firm is John Pew & Sons, my brother and myself are the sons—We 
own twenty (20) fishing vessels and have averaged as many as that 
number, their tonnage varies from forty (40) to one hundred (100) tons 
each, they are exclusively engaged in the cod and mackerel fisheries. 
Last year we had two vessels only engaged in the mackerel fishery in 
the Canadian Waters and that not in fisbing inshore. 


Since the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington took effect viz | 


1872, we have had four years experience of the operation of the free 
fishing clauses. During those years we have caught mackerel to the 
value of $167,000,, as shown by our sales in the United States waters 
and $39,600,, worth in British waters; of which $39,600,, worth I 
think hardly any were taken within three miles of the shore. Our ves- 
sels having chiefly fished at the Magdalen Islands. During the same 
four years our catch of codfish &c has been $475,000;, no part of 
which was caught within three miles of the British shore but all in the 
deep seas and on the coast of the United States. Seven eighths of the en- 
tire codfish catch has been off the coasts of the United States. Since1872 
the percentage of our catch of mackerel taken off the British coast has 
decreased being in 1875 only $7,800 out of $156,014, total fish produce- 
tion. The shore fisheries of the United States are far more valuable 
than those off the British coasts. The value of the fisheries on the 
British coast has been steadily diminishing. The quality of the mack- 
erel taken off the British coast has been growing poorer and that off the 
United States coast bas grown better for some years past. 

The amount of bait bought by the vessells of our firm of the inhabitants 
of the British Provinces was in 1874 about $500-worth in 1875 about 
$800 worth, this bait was fresh herring for our vessels bound to the 


banks of Newfoundland to fish for cod. We have never caught any bait - 


in British waters. Few if any United States vessels catch any bait in 
their waters. All our mackerel bait consists of salted porgies taken off 
the U.S. coast ; this fish is not found in the British waters: they are a 
warm water shore fish and are rarely found beyond Mt. Desert which 
is considered their eastern and northern limit. The pogies are to some 
extent bought by the Colonists as bait for mackerel, their only other bait 
for mackerel is herring which is much inferior. The right to land and 
dry bets or cure fish on shore is of no value to anybody, this practice 
has become wholly obsolete, the whole mode of fishing to which this re- 
lates ceased more than a generation ago. All fish both cod and mack- 
erel are brought home to cure the fishing vessels do not even cure their 
own catch, but sell them green to be cured by fis': dealers and packers. 
The entire fishing fleet of Gloucester in August 1875 was in all 392 ves- 
sels, the number has been about the same for ten (10) years past though 
the average tonnage has increased. In 1875 during the summer not 
over 35 vessels entered tne Bay of St Lawrence or any other British 
waters for Mackerel, the rest fished off the coasts of the United States 
alone; except about 100 on the banks of Newfoundland. As I have al- 
ready stated the percentage caught in British waters has regularly de- 
creased for five years past. 

_ The United States fishermen import nothing into the British Prov- 
inces, the provincial fishermen import into the United States all their 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8098 


fat mackerel and nearly all their poor mackerel Fat mackerel apwoil 
when carried into southern latitudes and there is no market for them 
except in the United States and there not south of Chesapeake Bay 
The United States also furnished the chief market for the larce codfish 
which sell here to better advantage than anywhere else, the small cod. 
fish caught by the provincial fishermen go to the West Indies Spain and 
Great Britain. ; 

Nearly all the smoked herring from the provinces come into the 
United States. The alewife fishery, salmon fresh and salt; large 
_ amounts of fish oils nearly all that is produced in the provinces come 
| into the United States. The effect of free importations since the Treaty 
of Washington has been very injurious to the fishing interests of the 
U.S. the competition caused by it has nearly ruined the protits of the 
business. 

And inasmuch as the cost of building and equipping a vessel in the 
provinces is much less than in the United States, from a third to a 
quarter Jess—if there were as many fishermen in the provinces as in the 
United States and they had equal capital, skill and energy the prinei- 
pal fishing business would be transferred to the provinces. 

My business experience is that the effect of the present treaty is and 
that of the former Reciprocity Treaty during its continuance, was, that 
the free importation of fish from the British provinces is a great injary 
to the United States fishermen and far outweighs any benetit they may 
derive from fishing inshore 
| As to the effect upon the prices of fish to the consumer of free importa- 
tions under the treaty, there has not yet been any perceptable reduction of 
prices in the retail business although four years out of the ten named tn 
the treaty have already elapsed. In fact, the profits of the fishing bast. 
ness are so small that it is no exaggeration to say that a fish in the sea 
has no money value and that the cost of catching is so great that the 
return upon capital invested in the fisheries is small and does not aver- 
age as well as the returns from capital in other branches of business, the 
profit is all made on shore by the curers and dealers who buy from the 


fishermen. 
CHARLES H. PEW 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


EssEx ss GLOUCESTER Dee 1875 


Then personally appeared the abovenamed Charles Hi. Pew to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him sab- 


scribed are true to the best of his knowledge and belief—betore te 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 


Notary Public 


I, Alfred Mansfield of Gloucester of the County of Essex and Com 
monwealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say—that 
I have been engaged in the fishing business for the last 24 years. lam 
a member of the firm of James Mansfield & Sons—I have had in the 
course of the two preceding fishing seasons frequent opportunities for 
conversation with intelligent and well informed Nova Scotia eRe 
and fishermen residing in the southern portion of Hove Sonia s990 e 
_ people of that region are now more extensively than ever turning — 
attention to the catching of codfish both in their own immedeate ery 
and on the more distant fishing banks—Attention Is being oer to 
these fisheries on the part of capitalists who previously have found in 


\ 


— 


3094 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


otber branches of marine business full employment for their money and 
have been unwilling to engage in a business paying so poor returns as 
the fisheries— 

The Nova Scotians who have at their own doors what might be an im- 
mense source of wealth have been lacking an available out-let for the 
surplus product of their fisheries beyond that which their own markets 
supply, but under the existing state of affairs between the United States 
aud Great Britain this want is fully met—Since the autumn of 1873 the 
Grand Banks Codfishery has been as a whole unproductive and such 
stocks of fish as the American vessels have produced have been dis- 
posed of without difficulty, but in the event of a large catch which would 
till all the markets of our own to overflowing the presence of a large 
amount of English fish thrown into the market on equal footing with 
our own and at greatly reduced cost of production from our own, thereby 
enabling them to be sold at a profit to their owners when American fish 
would have to be sacrificed, would be a blow of great severity to the en- 
tire New England Codfishery— 

At the present time there are in our market a greater number than 
usual of English parties in pursuit of a cheap class of fishing schooners, 
and I have known witbin the past year of several instances in which ves- 
sels have been sold to parties from the Provinces to be employed in the 
codfishing business—I consider that by means of the new treaty between 
the United States and Great Britain the fishing interests of the British 
Provinces have received a most favorable and important impulse. 

ALFRED MANSFIELD 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX SS GLOUCESTER Dee 29th 1875 


Then personally appeared the above named Alfred Mansfield to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him sub- 
scribed are true so far as they depend upon his own knowledge aud as 
far as they depend upon information and belief he believes them to be 
true— 

—before me— 

DAVIDEW.. LOW. 

(Seal.) Notary Publie 
No. 33. 


I George Steele of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn doth depose and say I am 
and tor the last 27 years have been engaged in the fishing business, 
ownlug and fitting out vessels for the cod and mackerel fisheries on the 
North American coast. My vessels have been both on the coasts of the 
eee provinces and of the United States. I had last year in all eleven 
vesseles. 

The codfishery is wholly a deep sea fishery no cod are caught within 
three wiles of the shore. The free fishery clauses of the treaty are there- 
fore of no value to the United States fishermen engaged in this cateh. 
Nor do the cod fishermen catch their own bait, they carry as bait from 
home salt and fresh herring; they also to some extent buy fresh bait in 
the provinces herring or squid. 

The effect on the codfish business of allowing free importations into 
the United Statas has been and must continue to be very beueficial to 
the provinces, for they find in the United States their chief warket for 


a ch 


a a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8095 


large codfish—their small codfish go to the West Indies and is con. 
sumed at home. 

The effect on the codfisheries of the United States is to bring them 
into severe competition with the Canadians who by reason of the greater 
cheapness of building and equipping vessells in which they have an 
advantage over us of from 25 to 50 percent could if they had equal 
capital and enterprise monopolise the business to the exclusion of our 
own fishermen. 

The mackerel are the only fish caught at all in shore, the relative im- 
portance of mackerel in the trade of the country has for some years 
beer steadily diminishing, they are much less used than formerly. In 
the Western States whitefish from the lakes are taking their place 
largely. 

The quality of Mackerel caught off-the coasts of the British provinces 
is also much poorer than formerly and the quantity taken much less, 
Not one tenth of the mackerel caught in British waters are taken within 
three miles of the shore. 

And for the last three or four years the seine fishery for mackerel off 
the United States coasts has been very successful. In 1875 the cateh 
of the British coast was very small. 

I have no doubt the free importation of mackerel into the United 
States is a benefit to,the provinces which far more than compensates 
for all the United States can gain by fishing inshore. The United 
States is the only market for fat mackerel and almost the ouly one for 
the poorer grades. 

I should rather be subject to the restrictions formerly imposed and 
not be allowed to fish within three miles of the coast, if duties could be 
again imposed on fish from the provinces. 

- GEORGE STEELE 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


Essex ss GLOUCESTER Dee 29th 1875 


_ Then personally appeared the abovenamed George Steele to me known 
and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him subscribed are 
true so far as they depend upon his own knowledge and as far as they 
depend upon information and belief he believes them to be trae, 
—before me— DAVID W. LOW 
(Seal.) Notary Public 
No. 34. 


I Sylvanus Smith of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Common. 
wealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn depose and say that Tam 
forty seven years old and am a member of the firm of Smith and Gott, 
our firm ownes seventeen (17) vessels I have been engaged in the fish- 
ing business twenty eight years, seventeen years as master of a veasel 
and eleven years on shore fitting out vessels for the cod and mackerel 


_ fisheries—Last year only two out of our whole fleet were engaged in fishing 


. off the Canadian coast—No portion of 


." 


-milesof the shore—In 1873 we had 


fishing off the coast of Canada has stea 
_ profitable and fewer and fewer Vv 


all the catch last year was taken 


inshore—In 1874 we had five vessels in Canadian Waters and I shoald 


think about one eighth part of the fish caught were taken within three 
six vessels in Canadian Waters and 


1e last eight years the mackerel 
lily decreased and become less 
essels are sent there each year— Most 
the United States coast by means 


very few fish were taken inshore—For tl 


of the mackerel caught are taken on 


i 


3096 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of seines—fishing for mackerel with seines cannot be profitably carried 
ov in Canadian Waters on account of the roughness of the bottom and 
shoalness of the water, for this reason American fishermen have al- 
most entirely ceased to use the Canadian mackerel fishery—A1l the bait 
used in mackerel fishing consists of menhaden or porgie which is only 
found off the coast of the United States, and which the Canadians 
bought from the American fishermen to a great extent—Now by the 
Treaty they have equal facilities with us for procuring it—We buy from 
the Canadians herring aud small mackerel to use on the Banks for eod- 
bait; Our firm has paid as much as $2000.00 the past season for this 
alone—We often repair and refit our vessels in the Provinces purchas- 
ing supplies &e and have paid as much as $500;¢, for one ship there— 

I consider the right to land and dry nets cure fish &c on the Canadian 
shores as of no value—I have never had any of my vessels land for 
this purpose nor have I ever known of any other vessels doing so— 
During the past season very few vessels from this town not more than 
forty out of three hundred and fifty fished in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
and these only for twoor three months— 

No fish are ever exported from the United States to the provinces 
while all their large cod and the best quality of their mackerel are sent 
here; the only fish for which there is a market in the provinces are the 
small cod and poorer grades of mackerel— ‘ 

I think that the fishermen of the United States will be injured by.the 
Treaty of Washington—The Canadians can build ships cheaper than 
the Americans and by the free clause of the Treaty they can carry and 
in some cases have carried their fish directly to the American ports and 
sold them there—Under the old Reciprocity Treaty the Canadian fishing 
fleet increased largely but as soon as the repeal of the treaty prevented 
their taking their fish into the United States free of duty, it became so 
unprofitable that it was toa great extent given up and vessels which 
they had begun building for the fishing business were left untinished on 
the stocks—Since the present Treaty has taken effect, the business has 
increased very largely in the Provinces— 

I consider the inshore fisheries of little value, we send few vessels 
and they take few fish—All the value of the treaty to our fishermen is 
the right to traid, buy bait &c unmolested and if we could be protected 
in this, we should much prefer and desire the old tariff—this right to 
trade we have always claimed but it has been denied to us and we have 
been harassed in every way— 

SYLVANUS SMITH 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX 8s GLOUCESTER Dee 28th 1875 


Then personally appeared the above named Sylvanus Smith to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him sub- 
scribed are true so far as they depend upon his own knowledge and as 
far as they depend upon information and belief he believes them to be 
true—before me— 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 
No. 35. 


I, Morris Whelen of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts, being duly sworn do depose and say, that 
I have been twenty-two years engaged in fishing for mackerel. I have 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3997 


been master of a vessel for the last fifteen years. Most of the time I have 
fished in the Gulf of St Lawrence, I have in all this time caught very 
few fish within three miles of the shore—The fish in this Gulf are grow. 
ing poorer each year, last season they were very scarce around Prince 
Edwards Island—I have never caught any bait in Canadian waters bat 
have always carried pergies from Gloucester to use for this purpose—I 
have never bought any supplies from the Canadians. The only thing 
that [ have ever procured from the shore has been water. ‘ 

For the last few years many more fish have been taken off the Ameri 
ean shores than in Canadian waters. I should think the proportion was 
ten toone I have generally tished off the Magdalen Island 

MAURIS WHELEN 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX ss GLOUCESTER Dee 29th 1875 

Then personally appeared the above named Morris Whelan to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him sab- 
scribed are true to the best of his knowledge and belief ; 

before me 
DAVID W. LOW 

[Seal.] Notary Public 

No. 36. 


I Thomas Grady of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Common. 
wealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say that I 
have been engaged in the Cod and Mackerel fishery since 1851 bave 
been Master of a fishing vessel seventeen years—In 1872 fished off the 
coast of the United States for mackerel in 1873 and 1874 fished in Bay 
of St Lawrence; in 1875 on the “Georges” Banks, Mackerel on the 
Canadian coast are much poorer and fewer than formerly and in conse- 


quence fewer vessels from this port go there—The only bait for the 


mackerel is the pogie, which is only found in the United States and 


which the Canadians buy from us. I have in 1869 bought codfish bait 


from the Canadians for use on the Grand Banks—I do not think that 
our fishing inshore would be any detriment to Canadian fishermen—I 
consider the Treaty of Washington of much more benetit to the Cana- 


dians than to the fishermen of the United States. 
THOMAS GRADY 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


Essex ss GLOUCESTER Dee 28th 1875 


wealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say 


it Dawe 


_ past fifteen years—I am a me! 


_ we are the owners of fourteen V 
all of which are engaged in the cod and mackerel fisheries—Dariog 


Then personally appeared the above named Thomas Grady to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by bim sab- 


scribed are true to the best of his knowledge and belief—_ ; 
Before me DAVID W LOW 


(Seal.) Notary Public 
No. 37. 
- I, James G. Tarr of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Common. 
Lam forty 
five years old and have been engaged in the fishery business for the 
: nber of the firm of J. G. Tarr and Brother, 
essels from fifty to eighty tons barden 


3098 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the past season only one out of all our vessels has been engaged in fish- 
ing off the coast of Canada—In 1866 we sent seven vessels out of a fleet 
of Eight sail to British waters; In 1867 the same number were sent 
there; In 1868 four vessels—In 1869 three vessels In 1870 four ves- 
sels, 1871 three vessels, 1872 only two vessels with an increase of fleet 
to ten sail—1873 four vessels, 1874 with an increase of fleet to twelve 
sail we sent only four vessels- 

Since the Treaty we have used the inshore fisheries very little and 
our principal catch has been at the Magdalen Islands and on the Banks 
—For the last two years nearly all our vessels going to the Banks of 
Newfoundland for cod fish have touched at Colonial Ports and pur- 
chased herring bait there for use on the Banks, they also carry some 
salted bait from home for the codfishery—There is no inshore fishing 
for bait on the British Coast by United States vessels—I should con- 
sider seven eighths of all fisheries pursued by Americans on the 
Canadian shores consists of deep sea fishing, while only the remaining 
eighth inshore where only mackerel are caught. 

I can conceive of no injury to Canadian fishermen that can be caused 
by our fishing in their waters side by side with them, but I shonld 
think that it would be a great benefit to them on account of the large 
amount of bait thrown everboard by American fishermen which attracts 
the fish—The only bait used for mackerel is the porgie or menhaden 
which is found entirely in the United States and which all the Canadi- 
ans have to buy from the Americans in a salted state, this fish (the 
porgie) is not found in Canadian Waters and is almost the only bait 
used in the mackerel fishery ; if the Canadians were unable to procure 
this bait, they would be compelled to use herring bait which is much 
inferior for the purpose—The bait which we buy from them for the cod- 
fishery consists of herring and some small mackerel— 

For the last ten years our firm has averaged to pay the Canadians 
from $800—to $1000;2, a year for this bait—We are also in the habit of 
purchasing in the Provinces any supplies, ice &c of which our vessels 
may be in need our supplies thus purchased amount to about $500—a 
year on the average—In reference to the purchase of bait from the 
Americans by Canadian fishermen, I have known vessels to sail from 
this port with as many as three hundred barrels of porgie bait on 
Hara which was sold in Halifax and the Straits of Canso to Canadian 

shermen. 

I think the right of fishermen of either nation under the treaty to 
land dry nets &c on the shores of the other, amounts to nothing on 
either side, All fishing vessels are now in the habit of curing all their 
fish at the home ports— 

During the period of the former Reciprocity Treaty and since the 
Treaty of Washington, the importations of fish into the United States 
from the Provinces have been very large and have materially interfered 
with the profits of our fishermen, this is especially the case with the 
mackerel almost all of which, that are caught by the Canadians are 
Sent into the United States for sale—Also all their large codfish are 
sold in the United States as they have a market for the small cod only 
at home—A1l their fat herring and No. 1 salmon are sold in the United 
States— 

_ [consider the Treaty of Washington of much more value to the Prov- 
inces than to the United States—I should prefer the old duty on fish 
and would be willing to give up all our rights of inshore fisheries under 
the Treaty, if the tariff could be renewed—This conclusion is the result 
of four years—experience under the Treaty of Washington and also un- 


_ @ach year—The right to | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3099 


der the whole of the former Reciprocity Treaty As all vessels can be 
built, equipped and manned in the colonies for a third leas than in the 
United States—consequently if there were as many colonia! fishermen as 
Americau and they had equal skill and industry they could entirely 
drive the American fishermen out of the business_- ; 


JAMES G. TARR 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX SS GLOUCESTER Dee 22d 1875 
Tben personally appeared the abovenamed James G. Tarr to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him sab 
scribed are true as far as they depend upon his own knowledge and as 

far as they depend upon information and belief he believes to be true 

before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
' Notary Public 
No. 38. 


I John E. Gorman of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Com- 


_ monwealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say, 


that I am twenty six years old and have been engaged in the fish- 
ery business for the last thirteen years during the last five years 
I have been master of a vessel—I have been engaged in fishing for 
mackerel in the Bay of St Lawrence every year but two, and since 
the Treaty has come into effect have been in the Bay each year— 
In 1874 during the month of July I fished in shore to some extent 
may have taken from 150 to 200 barrels out of 700 my whole catch 
for that trip. In 1875 fished near the Magdalen Islands and caught 
very few inshore—Out of my last three trips in which my whole catch 
was 1900 barrells I caught not more than 200 barrels inshore—Most of 
the fish taken inshore are caught by the Canadians from small! boats 
going out from the shore and returning each day with their fish. They 
can use with profit this fishery where in many cases our large fishing 
vessels could. not. go. This inshore fishery is f comparatively little 
value to us, We woald be much better off without this right and with 
the old duty of $2 per barrel on fish imported from Canada—The Bay 
‘fishery has been steadily decreasing from year to year, last year of all 
the vessels from Gloucester engaged in the Mackerel fishery nearly four 
hundred in all only about 50 sail were in the Bay at any time. This ts 
caused by the increase in value of the seine fishery on the coast of the 
‘United States,in which most of the other vessels were engaged. This 
seine fishery is much more valuable and profitable than the fishing tn 
the Bay with lines, the vessels make shorter trips. The seine Ssbery 
has been tried to some extent in the Bay but was not profitable, the 
bottom is too rough and the water too shoal— . : 
The fish in the Bay have diminished in number and deteriorated in 
quality very much within the last ten years. for Instance last year 
the vessels did not average more than 120 barrels each, w hile the best 
-eatch was only 380 barrels, in 1874 my vessel] caught 700 barrels and 
the whole fleet averaged, as much as 300 barrels— . oe 
Clams and pogies are the principal bait for mackerel, Dogies are only 
taken on the coast of the United States and ae veaee ee it ioe 
3 have sold them myself as nuch as barre 
us to a great extent, I vel Xe as granted by the Treaty used to be 


of some value in the old times when the Reciprocity Treaty was im 


3100 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. | 
force, it was the custom then to tranship the fish and send them back | | 
by freighters, but this is not done now each vessel carries back itsown | 
catch to Gloucester—American vessels purchase supplies from the — 
Canadians to a great extent, furnishing supplies and shipping on board 
our vessels as hands for a fishing trip are the principal occupations of | | 
the people at Canso. Last year I spent $50.00 for supplies there, and | 
have probably averaged that amount each year—Canadians can prose. 
cute the fisheries in their waters with much less expense than we can, 
they can build their vessels one-third cheaper, their crews go for less, 
in all Canadian vessels the skippers per centage is assessed among the 
crew, While here it is paid by the owners—Now that the American 
market is thrown open to them, they can undersell our fishermen and 
reduce their profits. Under the old tariff before the Treaty, their share 
of the trips has been much less valuable— 


JOHN. E. GORMAN 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX Ss GLOUCESTER Feby 2d 1876 


Then personally appeared the above named John Gorman to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him sub- 
scribed are true upon his own knowledge and belief— 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Publie 
No. 39. 


I Nicholas Warren of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn dodepose and say that I 
have been engaged in the cod and mackerel fisheries for the last seven- 
teen years have been in the Bay the last six years—I have fished very 
little inshore as I could not do so well there as further out—In our fish- 
ing vessels we cannot follow the mackerel so well as the Canadians who 
in their small boats come out from the shore—Last summer there were 
very few fish in the Bay, this has been so for the last few years and the 
vessels engaged in fishing off the American coast have made much bet- 
ter fares than those which went to the Bay—Last season there were not 
more than forty Gloucester vessels in the Bay out of a fleet of four hun- 
dred, while ten years ago there would be as many as three hundred from 
Gloucester alone in the Bay at one time, This was before the seine fish- 
ery on our own coast became so valuable—I have known of seine fishing 
being tried in Canadian waters, but it has been unsuccessful the water 
was shallow and the rough bottom tore their nets—I have never sold |” 
any bait to the Canadians but have known of its being done to a great 
extent, the bait used by us for mackerel is the meuhaden which is not 
found in Canadian waters and they have to use herring which is poor 
and not nearly so good for the purpose—I have never repacked and 
shipped any fish home by steamer and I do not consider the clause in 
the treaty permitting this of any value, ten years ago it used to be done 
but not now Our trade is a great advantage to the Canadians as we 
purchase supplies wood &¢ in great quantities, I have paid as much at 
2100.00 each year— 

The free clause in the Treaty is of great benefit to the Canadians and 
has lowered our prices and diminished our profits — Canadian vessels 
have come to this town and sold their fish green here as they had no 
market for them at home and the received much higher prices here — 

Nhe Canadians can build their vessels much cheaper than we canand | 
also they pay their crew much less a man can be hired in the Provinces. 


‘paring to fish.” I have been chased 
~ Harbor” Canso I was seized as a prize an 


from the Canadians are the rights in tl 
all other vessels except American fishing-vessels— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3101 


for from $50 to $75 a trip, while we pay from 100 to &200 per m; 
thus they can under sell and make a profit where we euiaitlien 22 


NICHOLAS WARREN 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


Essex ss GLOUCESTER Jany 26th 1876 
Then personally appeared the abovenamed Nicholas Warten to me 
known and made oath that all the foregoing statements subscribed by 
him are true as far they depend upon his own knowledge and as far as 
they depend upon information and belief he believes them to be trae— 
Before me— 
(Seal) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public. 
No. 40. 


I Henry Hardy of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Common. 
wealth of Massachusetts, being duly sworn do depose and say that [ 


_ have been engaged in the fishery business for twenty one years, for last 


seventeen years master of a vessel—Since 1872 have been in the Bay 
each year, very few fish were caught inshore not one eighth portion of 
the whole catch. This was in 1873 & 1874 last vear did not tish inshore 
as I did better oatside—My principal catch has always been about the 
Magdalen Islands—Last year there were about 125 vessels in the Bay 
of which perbaps 40 were from Gloucester. All most all the inshore bay 
fisbery is carried on by the Canadians in small boats from the shore, so 


that they can use this fishery with profit where we could not, as they 


ean follow the fish closer to the shore—Fewer and fewer vessels go to 
the Bay each season as they can make more profit seine fishing on the 
American coast I have tried to use a seine for mackerel in the Bay 
but I bad no luck, the fish would not school there as the do in our 
waters and the water in many places is too shoal to permit of its being 
used to any advantage—I think the free importation clause in the 
Treaty of great advantage to the Canadians, as they can carry on the 
business so much cheaper than we can, There is a rebate of duty on all 
articles bought by fishermen for their business and they can build boats 
and hire men much cheaper—Many men have gone from here to the 
Provinces, where they can buy a boat for 850 and by going oat from 
the shore catch there fish and carry them back at night, making more 
money than by going on fishing trips. Large Canadian fishing vessels 


have come to Gloucester and sold their fish there green— Canadians use 


as bait herring which they catch in their own waters but this ts a poor 
bait—and when they can they procure mevhaden bait from us—.A meri: 
can vessels spend a great deal of money for supplies &e in ¢ anada, I 
in oue summer paid out $2000.00 for refitting The merchants at Canso 
complain and say that they have lost a great deal of money by the dim. 
inution of business caused by our vessels not coming to the bay as they 
used to—The only benefit under the treaty we receive is the right to 
enter harbors &c without molestation, we were troubled in every way 
and driven away from the harbors on the ground that we were “ pre- 
several times by cutters when I 
Was more than seven miles away from the land and once in * Pirates 
1 1 my sails stripped off because 

‘ rithi riven time allowed me—All we Want 
Te ee manne their harbors which are allowed to 


HENRY HARDY 


3102 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


Essx ss GLOUCESTER Jan 25th 1876 


Then personally appeared the abovenamed Henry Hardy and made 
oath that all the foregoing statements by him subscribed are true as far 
as they depend upon his own knowledge and as far as they depend upon 
information and belief he believes them to be true— 

—before me— 
(Seal.) DAV ED OW. LOW: 
Notary Public 
No. 41. 


I John E Saunders of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say that 
I am forty seven years old and have been engaged in fishing since I was 
a boy for the last twenty five years I have been captain of a vessel I Have 
been in the Bay of St Lawrence every year from July to November. Since 
1872 I have used the inshore fisheries very little, in all have not taken 
more than five barrels inshore—I can always do much better off shore 
—Last year there were very few Gloucester vessels in the Bay not more 
than forty, most of the others were engaged in seine fishing off our own 
coast which is very valuable and productive—The Bay catch has not 
been near so heavy for the last five years as before and for this reason 
we send fewer vessels each year tothe Bay. The seine fishery has been 
tried in the Bay but has been unsuccessful the water is shallow and the 
mackerel do not school as they do off our coast—Canadians import men- 
baden bait from the United States to some extent, the menhaden is not 
found north of Cape Sable, fresh herring is used by Canadians some- 
what but it is an inferior sort of bait and they much prefer menhaden 
when they can get it. I never have used the right under the treaty to 
land and repack fish &¢ I do not consider it of any value—I have pur- 
chased supplies and refitted in Canadian ports, several times spent $250 
—in one seasop and once paid $700—for refitting my vessel Americans 


are charged very high prices for every thing purchased—They can build - 


their vessels much cheaper and by paying their crews much less they 
can carry on the business at much less cost and as by the treaty they 
can send their fish here free, they are enabled to make a profit where 
our fishermen could not live— 

I consider the treaty of much benefit to the Canadians and of little 
value tous; The only use to us, is that we are allowed to buy pro- 
visions We without hinderance, this right was always ours, but we were 
prevented and driven away on the ground that it was preparing to 


fish— 
JOHN E. SAUNDERS 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX ss GLOUCESTER Jan 26th 1876 


Then personally appeared theabovenamed John Saunders to me known 
and made oath that all the foregoing statements subscribed by him are 
true as far as they depend upon his own knowledge and as far as they 
depend upon information and belief he believes them to be trae— 

before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Publie 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3103 
No. 42. 


[ Richard Hannan of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Com. 
monwealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say that 
I am forty three years old, have been on fishing trips ever since | was 
a boy, for the last eighteen years master of a vessell. Most every year 
from July to November have been mackerel fishing sometimes all the 
ear—For the last ten years have fished principally around the Magda. 
en Islands I have fished in the Bay both within and without three mile 
limit but have caught most fish offshore—Since 1872 I have used the 
inshore fisheries to some extent. The catch inshore seemed much poorer 
_ than when [ fished before inshore during the Reciprocity Treaty—The 
_ Bay fishery has been very poor for last five years, the fish are few and 
poor, the price of Bay mackerel has been about $5 less than the Ameri- 
can mackerel—only few Gloucester vessels from forty to fifty were in 
the Bay last year, ten years ago all the vessels fisbed there bat by rea- 
son of the fewness of the fish they have left it and now fish on the 
American shores with a seine—I have seen vessels in the Bay fishing 
with seines but they had no luck and tore or lost their seines—I have 
sold menhaden bait to the Canadians a few barrels each year, they im- 
port a great deal of this bait from the United States—now by the Treaty 
they can come here and catch this bait themselves, to my own know!- 
edge there have been two or three vessels here from Yarmouth or Argyle 
which came to catch pogies for use in the Bay—I have bought cod bait. 
salt lines &c from the Canadians have paid $125—gold for codbait and 
as much as $500 for refitting my vessel in one summer—I bave under 
the clause of the treaty, Janded mackerel transhipped it and sent them 
home by steamer, but there is not any gain or benefit procured by doing 
so, the expense is much greater than if I had taken the fish bome in my 
own vessel I consider the right of the Canadians to send their fish in 
free of duty and sell them in the United States worth a great deal more 
to them, than anything we shall gain by the treaty I have known Cana- 
dian vessels to land their small fish at home where there is a market for 
them, and then taking the larger ones to the United States and selling 
them there to more advantage—Canadians can use the inshore fishery 
to much more advantage than we ean, they go out in small boats from 
the shore and can fish near shore where our vessel cannot go—Prices of 
mackerel have been much jower during the past year than before and 
all our fishermen have lost money—The only benefit of the treaty to us 
is the nse of the harbors without molestation and being permitted to 
_buy provisions &c the inshore fisheries we cannot use to any profit— 
The right to send in fish free of duty is of much more value to the 
Canadians than any rights we have received or will receive under the 
treaty ; this is my experience of four years under this and six under the 


pod Treaty— RICHARD HANNAN 


>. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


GLOUCESTER, Jan 28th 1876 
abovenamed Richard Hanoa 
foregoing statements by him 


EssEx ss— 
‘Then personally appeared before me the 
tome known and made oath that all the ‘eae 4 
subscribed are true as far as they depend upon bis own know edge as 
_as far as they depend upon information and,beliet he believes them to 
Be before me— DAVID W. LOW 


(Seal) Notary Pu! lie 


3104 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 43: 


This is to certify, That the undersigned Stephen B. Morey have 
been engaged in the fishing business, for the past thirty years, at Deer 
Isle, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, 
our vessels have been employed as follows: Namely since 1871 
No. of Vessels employed five (5) 11 men to each Vessel 
No. of Trips made six trips yearly each year 

1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 


No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence ...... ---- 99 2 00 00 00 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
Lawrence . ...-... Bact ; ---- 00 420 00 00 O 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands . 
None caught on Bradly Orphan & Magdalenes 


Average value of Vessels Gachs 2.5.0. st 2sae- wena seco we seis $3500 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e....-......-. Ciao seh $2400 
Average value of Insurance.....-... 8 per cent on vessel & outfits yearly 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.... $34 
Average value of Commissionps, &c.......- 2208 to each Captain yearly 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. . ..23003 

Number of Vessels lost 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 


85 cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 
POR DOle earch aes sais nates Pete e ee ae See eae ete $2.20 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. nothing’ 


Total value of Mackerel do .............-<<- esate eiweier io wee nothing 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel..\7 ree Pie ; 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel............-. $11.50 $8 $5.50 
Average earnings of the operative fisherman per year ........... $2.20 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$12003 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ............-.-.-. $400 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locatious frequented by American vessels for Fish 
; Grand Western Lahave Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Maekerel 
Cape Henry to Anticosta 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken 
} — as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
sheries 
Karly in going fishing I used the waters of the Bay of St Lawrence— 
Later iu lite inthe same waters I used to go mackereling and made some 
fair Trips with the Jig. Since 1867 I have abandoned the fisheries of 
the Bay of St Lawrence ouly Sending there.in 1873 and my vessels have 
been engaged in Fishing with trawls—and Seining mackerel on our Shore. 
So far as American fishermen are concerned our vessels have given up 
the Bay of St Lawrence—and regard it as an entire failure 


S. B. MOREY 


|) : ’ a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. S104 4 


| Sworn and subscribed to before me, this eighth day of Jane 1877 
THOMAS WARREN 


i Justi ‘ 4 
| Srare or Marne RE ap he Fmee 


CouNTY OF HANCOCK 


STATE OF MAINE. 
HANCOCK, SS. 
I, Hutson B. Saunders, Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Courts, in said 
County, certify that Thomas Warren Esquire is and was at the date 
of his Certiticate an acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said County 
duly commissioned and qualified to act as such, and that the signature 
_ to the paper annexed, purporting to be his, is genuine, and that he is 
| duly authorized and empowered, by the laws of said State, to take ac- 
| knowledgment of Deeds, Assignments, and Powers of Attorney, and to 
administer oaths. : 
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my Hand and aflixed the 
Seal of the Supreme Judicial Court, for said State, this eighth day of 
| 
| 


ene ee 


June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
seven. ‘aie 
(Seal.) HUTSON B SAUNDERS Clerk. 


No. 44. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned Seth and C. H. S. Webb have 
been engaged in the fishing business, for the past Ten years, at Deer 
Isle, Maine, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, bas been 
in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: viz. since 1871 


| 
| No. of Vessels employed...............--...-3, 15 men to each vessel 
| No. of Trips made....-..... 1-2-2. 22.002 ee eee. five trips each year 
IS71L 1572 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of trips to Bay St. Lawrence........ oy joke Se) Fe Oo ie 
| No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. ) 1871 1872 1873 1574 1575 1876 
_Lawrence..... eE APraE inn cere f 754 84 0 0 O O 
| No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalen Islands ......-.... Ehetyte diate teak all caught a Magdalens 
Average value of vessels each......--.-- She Geae ce cicee tae ee hmes £4000, 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..... meh ea sents bake #35000, 
Average Value of Insurance. ..--- ..--.10%) on vessel & outtits yearly 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., Wages per mo. -837.50 
Average value of Commissions, \c ....-..-----+--- err jep 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &e., for curing and packlog 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore.... 82000 

Number of vessels lost ........---0 ee cee reece eee rere tees ceteee none 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost ...... ....--+---+++- fete nent eee e dese eres none 

- Total value of Fsh taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 

- Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xe., 


DOP DDE ae no pices sion emcee nee gees sence seer ences $1.50 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .nothing 
Total value of Mackerel do ..-..- severe tas bee ee teen eee cess nothing 


2 3 
. 216.00 $12.00 88,00 


Ay ican Shore Mackerel. 
Average market value of America seer e780 68.06 


4 Average market value of Bay Mackerel.....+.-+--- 
195 F 


es 


3106 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..... eas oem $200, 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ....-....... .-.-nothing 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Grand, Western La Have & Georges Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

Cape May to Gulf St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish iv the water, before taking.............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .......... nothing © 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


Had we not put seines on board our vessels, and sent them on our 
shore, we would have been obliged to abandon the mackerel fishery en- 
tirely, for mackerel were scarce and of poor quality in the Bay, and we 
were obliged to pay exorbitant prices at the British ports, for salt, bait 
and general supplies. so that it was impossible for our vessels to pay 
their bills, It is now utterly impossible to ship a crew to go to the Bay 
on shares, for they cannot make a living. Mackerel are plenty and of 
good quality on our shore, and the risk and expence to take them is very 
much less than fromthe Bay, We consider the Bay fisheries an absolute 
failure, None of our vessels used the inshore fisheries of the Dominion, 
as they could derive no advantage thereby. 

SETH WEBB. 


C. H. S. WEBB 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this eighth day of June 1877 
THOMAS WARREN 
Justice of the Peace 


STATE OF MAINE. 
HANCOCK, Ss. 

I, Hutson B. Saunders, Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Courts, in said 
County, certify that Thomas Warren Esquire is and was at the date 
of this Certificate an acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said County, 
duly commissioned and qualified to act as such, and that the signature 
to the paper annexed, purporting to be his, is genuine, and that he is 
duly authorized and empowered, by the laws of said State, to take ac- 
knowledgment of Deeds, Assignments, and Powers of Attorney, and to 
administer oaths. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my Hand.and affixed the 
Seal of the Supreme Judicial Court, for said State, this eigthth day of 
June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
seven 

(Seal.) HUTSON B SAUNDERS 

Clerk. 
No. 45. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, John Staples have been en- 
gaged in, the fishing business, for the past thirty years, at Swans Island 
Maine, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in 
effect our vesscls have been employed as follows: namely Since 1870 


No. of Vessels employed ......25.. 000. four (4) 13 men to each vessel 
OD DL. EUS MNSOO te ities ator hoes es oe five trips yearly each year 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3107 


No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
none none none 2 none none Hote 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence:... La. 
me" * 200 Bis 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclad. 
ing Magdalene Islands........................ all caught off Shore 
Average value of Vessels each ...................... eesaceenens MR 
Average value of outfits, Salt, Bait, &e.................... 2), 20008 


Average value of Insurance.....10 per cent on vessel & outtits yearly 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo... .@35 
Average value of Commissions, &c......... 240 to each Captain yearly 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor ou shore. 24008 
Number of Vessels lost 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish Taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per ewt. 
SO cents, 
Total value of Macke : el taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c.,per bbl. 


82.00 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....nope 

_ Total value of Mackerel do ...... cehaaiss hi oistas eke lat cae wos Se 

_ Average market value of American Shore Mackerelo ry a a 3 
Average Market value of Bay Mackerel............ 11 7) 6S 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.............. 240 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ................ nothing 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackere] 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
~ fisheries” 


When I Started in the fishing business Some thirty years Since—all 
_ fish were caught on hand line & Mackerel on the jig—Early in my Send- 
_ ing to the bay of St Lawrence my vessels made some fares that left a 
“dividend to to the owners—I kept sending to the Bay & sustaining 
_ losses I last Sent one vessel in 1873 and lost. The quantity fell off and 
the quality was poor & unsaleable of Bay fish—Seines now are used for 
mackerel & Trawls for fish—and I consider the right to fish inshore con- 
fers no benefit at all on American fishermen & no one here thinks ot 
ge a oa JOHN STAPLES 


> 


3 scribed to before me, this sixth day of June 1817 
eee ocala THOMAS WARREN 


Justice of the L’eace 
= STATE OF MALNE. 
__ HANCOCK, Ss. | xl 
Supreme Judical Courts, in said 


_ _ I, Hutson B. Saunders, Clerk of the Suprem: Fe eta Naber er 
County, certify that Thomas Warren Esquire is and was at the de 


3108 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


his Certificate an acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said County, 
duly commissioned and qualified to act as such, and that the signature 
to the paper annexed, purporting to be his, is genuine, and that he is 
duly authorized and empowered, by the laws of said State, to take ae- 
knowledgment of Deeds, Assignments, and Powers of Attorney, and to 
administer oaths. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my Hand and affixed the 
Seal of the Supreme Judicial Court, for said State, this sixth day of 
June in the’year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
seven 

(Seal.) HUTSON B SAUNDERS Clerk. 


No. 46. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Perkins | 


Brothers have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Twenty 
years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


Nos of Vessels employed ..2 <os0'4524 o.sciethew was goad ce ces ccc Nine (9) 
No. of Trips made....... SN Urea Sie atsis ie ee eave ete Six trips to each vessel 
1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence....... 5 2 3 4 a 3 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
3093 Bbls. in six years average 172 Bbls per trip. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 


ine Maodalene [sland 23.52. evcae seas 0 snis mostly at Magdalenes 
AVGrAgO VaAWMIE DE Vessels Cnt acted pene cis sccm winds Sas $5000. 
Average value of Oatfits, Salt, Bait, &c....$3000, a year to each vessel 
MVETRAE: WANG: Of SHEN TANCO sac tere nc cbiale we cre sciceta seis cel eaiec1aretacn yeas < 9% 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo..$35.00 
Average value of Commissions, &c...........-...-. $200. each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. ,$23,000. 


ON ERDER Or V OSBOIS LOStiral. cde tiers ries recite Ae ua a ote ales one 
Value of Vessels lost, including ontfits..............-0<.< ..... $4000 
Value of Fish lost ....... Ue Relea, cov tye Oars Rees ameter Free Mase faces $1500 
Namber of Dives lost: s.2cc0cs.o0s blues cera cae ct geen .. .--none 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting &c. per ewt. 
75 cts 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
nwa dedos Mites widaieior camstehs /sasata Gage sak eee Sherer mies casing AR 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores...--. none 
Fotat-valneol Mackerel doses cue ve wen aoa see ata ee wad $600. 


Average market value ot American Shore Mackerel 
No 1 $16.00 No 2 $12.00 No 3 $8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
No 1 $12.00 No2 $8.00 No3 $6.00 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year......... $225.00" 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$800. a year 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs .........-- $500. in five years. 


Grand Banks Georgees} | 


% ~—— > NE 


‘e AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3109 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackere! 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking......... o-..-. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken......... nothing 


The Bay of St. Lawrence fisheries have not proved remunerative, or 
- paying, business our vessels have not paid their expenses consequencely 
we shall confine our vessels to our own shores for mackerel and to the 
Ocean Banks for Cod Fish. We shall send no vessels to Bay of St. 
Lawrence this year. We use the British waters only to procure bait 
and other supplyes : 
W H PERKINS GEORGE PERKINS 
Wm. H. PERKINS, Jr. GEORGE H PERKINS 
_ Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1877. 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


| PERKIN BROTHERS. GLOUCESTER Mass— 
_ Account of receipts &c from trips to the Bay for the last four (4) 
| years—mostly caught at the Magdalenes 


| 1872 
he7- -Highflyer: 
| ie 159 bbls No.1 $12.50 $1679.30 
We 6° 47: «% ~=No.2 = 9.50 356.75 
ee 2° No.3 7.00 10.05 #2046 10 
| 1873 
_ 73 bbls No. 1 $15 $960.18 
i. 6s * No.2 11 612.54 
1" bia Novs: 9 432.16 82004 88 
> ©. Campbell 
i & 160 bbls No. 1 $12. $1601.35 
Pea 3 mesg _—-—1T (labor) 57.23 ep ore 
ca 4 bbls No.2 8 29,22 #1637 8 
“1874 | 
‘2 C. Campbell — ; 
35 bbls No. 1 $12 $350.00 
1h Ne; 8 907.00 
ES At Noe F235 230.40 owt, 
ar 20. No.4. 6. 82.36 #1569 35 
. F. Temple ; 
54 bbls No.1 $9.75 2415.50 Pere 
6o- * No.2 3. $13:20 SS AS 10 
5 C,. Campbell 
ss #1123.10 
~s 112 mess #12 (labor) bs pegih 
2 28 bbis No.1 8. 169.00 Hastiet 
30 “ No.2 6.50 137.0% einer ve 
: Veteran ee 
222 bbls No.1 $8 ert n 
256 “* No.2 6 — £2375 00 


& “© No.3 5 16 00 


3110 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
1875 
C. Campbell 
35 mess S21 $678.95 
108 scraped 17 } Labor on fish 1698.00 
46 bbls No.1 19 605.50 
Tt No: 2-22 . 119.40 
5 No.4. 7 29.30 $3061 15 
Wn. H. PERKINS GEORGE PERKINS 
By We Ee Jr By Wel Pedr: 
GEORGE H. PERKINS Wm. H. PERKINS, JR. 


By W.. b- BE. -dr- 
INGs47- 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of John 
Pew & Son have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
(1849-1877) 28 years at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington ~ 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 


No. of Vessels employed—an average Of......--.-..65 Le0s neces 183 
NO: Of: Trips: MACE: 5 ase ck eee wcawanieds Kbglaeie reba nine ee aee seme 830 
No. of ‘Trips:to: Bay St. Lawrenee << sx sa iewise awe os sisieie Dawe rae eitee 23 
No of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence...-.........-. 6059 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inelud- 
ing Magdalene Islands 

From ger eral talk with our Skippers during the time. we have always 
understood all caught were outside of 3 miles—We have no definite 
knowledge that any were caught inside. 


‘Average value oF Vessels 6ACH 202. o3ccccced wcieeee sox siee ewe $5000 
Average; value.of Outiits, Salt, Bait, G6 5..00 025 0s ote cates $3500 
Average: value Of INsnrance:s.. 72004 Sse acon eee eee nc ere ees $300 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo - .. $35.00 
Average value of Commissions; S0...5 ..26 <4 -c6so<sacewetesans $200 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore Value 
of wharves. fish houses &c $75.000. Yearly expense acct. adding for 

partners time $30. 000 


INGINDOE OF VEsSCIS TOSU< sca c.s02.- oc oats Se bare ean. se eee 
Value-o£ Vessels lost, including outfits... ..2...v< woes ceenas as $10,000 
Value of Fish lost ...... he ee halen deat eee ek ee se ee ane $1.200 
PME GE by OS LOSE acc ihc ic soe ec ni ee eae one a eaata cize 19 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per cwt. 
$1.25 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
: bbl. $2, 00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores .... None 
Sotal:valueiof Jivewerel €occg occcax Ges ba Lacon oe ees None 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
No. 3. No: 2 No. 1 
$8.00 $12.00 & $16.00 
No.3 No.2 No.1 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.......--. $63 $8.00 & $12.00 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year $300. during that 
time though less at present. 


Li al 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. S111 


prrege amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

p 1€8.---- eeeere ie 2 : habe Me Sm et at bee ly Sg ae Me ee br Gee hy YE ey at on tty Pe 8600 by | 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ...... .... 83000 M hea 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages & shares 

ere: ae at least $15,000 , 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs sa a) 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Banks off the American coast, Sable bank, Quero St. Peters & Grand 

; : , Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape Henry to Bay of Fundy & occasionally the Bay of St. Lawrence 


Actual value of Fish in the water before taking. .............No vale 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken ..........No valae 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries: Our Cod fisheries have been those of greatest value. We fish 
for Cod on the Banks off our own shores. and the past 5 years have sent 
a large number to the Grand Banks. The latter as a business investment 
has not paid. We market all the product of our fisheries in the United 
States. There is no other market, of any value for Mackerel and none 
for Halibut except our own. The opening of our market to the Provin- 
cial fishermen is very injurious tous. asthey pay no duties while all we 
used is heavily taxed. The priviledge of their markets or their inshore 
fishery is of no value compared to the priviledge of free entry to oar 
markets. 

JOHN J PEW, 

for JOHN PEW & SON. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirtieth day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public. 
No. 48. 


This is to certify,-That the undersigned, composing the firm of Smith 
& Oakes have been engaged in the fishing business for the past ten 
years, at Gloncester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 80 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


No..of Vessels employed ...... 2.0.05 22 eee ee cece reer eee: eee 6 
INS. of Trips made........-.-..-see-eee eee ere sesso ses. - 56 per year 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.....------- 1871—1 1873—2 1874—1 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.....--+----++> 1050 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands...........------+-202 se sceres secre: Unknown 
Average value of Vessels each .-..--------- +++ sr08er: Soca 85000, 
Average value of Outtits, Salt, Bait, &c..... ....-- 83000 per year 


retou Vessell & outfits yearly 
wages per mo 

#35. per month. 
Average value of Commissions, SiGwcts.cck . 8300 each Vessel! yearly 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &e., for curing aud packing, 


i f Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore | 
including expenses of Clerks, l aot og 3200= 017,500 


Average value of Insurance . .4375, or9 perct © 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, v1Z., 


~ Number of Vessels lost... samanees ec SpAUaa alas Wie tne Fah e ae hin se ee l 
> Value of Vessels lost, including outfits. ..--+--+++erssrerrreee = Oe 
BERETA. OF MAD IOBY Aonic save eg ene se oe ores Oe eee gene eS sess 3 


Number of Lives lost ..-..------ s-+++79 9" Ne a egaetusntete eee 


3112 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
Any alii Mresanel tou Ualoeumne uM eeua 
eta abc is me oh aa ee 
otal Colle.or MACKEFOl OO 4 co.cc cee satires aerate cee nent eee 000 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 

No. 1. $16.00 No.2 $12.00, No. 3 $8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 

No. 1s $12.00 No. 2s $7.00 No. 3s $5.00 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year -........ $298.28 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
WHOS ac1 co acme tear e erueeree Se aes oak $100.00 each Vessell per year 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herri ing $1700.00 per year for 2 years 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages...-......--. Ua Havers ate 000. 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs. .... 25.00 per year per vessel 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fisn 

Georges to Grand Bank, Labrador Bay St Lawrence 
Location frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

From Cape May to Gd. Menan & Bay St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking................ 000 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken............. 000: 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


The Gloucester vessels fishing on Georges most of them used to give 
up that branch of the business, commencing the last of May (nearly all 
having given up by the last of June) and go to the Bay of St Lawrence 
for Mackerel but since the failure of the mackerel fishing in the Bay of 
St Lawrence a larger number follow Georges fishing through the year, 
and others remain on this coast to catch mackerel, using seines instead 
of hook & line Larger vessels are now used than formerly.and more 
are engaged in the Grand Bank fisheries. 


PETER D SMITH SMITH & OAKES 
Sworn and subscribed to before mes this eighth day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 


Notary Public 
No. 49. 

This is to certify, that the undersigned, composing the firm of Walen 
& Allen have been engaged in the fishing business for the past eight 
years, at Gloucester, ‘Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed..... eer LE ee Fourteen 
ING: OL IIPS MAU Os a2 een oes ea oe ates See ee Four hundred & fifty 
NO.OF Prips: to Bay of. ot. UAWKENCG.s. 2..05 0s enc utsacne ree okies Five 


ye of sie of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence Ten hundred & Forty 
WO DDIS 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalene Islands ccevecs sec dncce sox. Two hundred & Fifty bbls. 
Average value of Vessels each...... 2.2.2.2. cecees Six thousand dollars 
Average value of outfits, Salt, Dalby Geo cea ee One thousand dollars 
Average value of Insurance dd ech atta terete’ einem ote Fifty- Two hundred dollars 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Thirty dollars 


Average value of Commissions, &c...........- Three hundred & Fifty 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3113 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &e., for curing and packing 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Twenty Five thousand dollars 


PRMMDOr OL EN VES IOS ours ost oad Wade se se GoRTR ESS bcs ise ale cn None 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per owt 
one dollar 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Kc. per 


Oe ete Boe Retreat winter ex v+.+-Four dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
Total value of Mackerel do .............. Three hundred dollars 6 yrs 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Eleven & °°, per bbl 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel............ sears SS average 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year............ £250 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Twenty Five hundred dolls 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Twelve thousand in 5 years 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish ° 
Grand, Western, & Georges Bank, Seal Island &e 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Mostly Magdalene Islands 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking............-. nothing 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taking......... - 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries : 


Most of our vessels are codfishing on the Ocean Banks and some ‘of 
|. them are off our own shores mackerelling We send no vessels into the 
Bay of St Lawrence this year. Our experience is that the Mackerel 
fishery there is a failure. Last year we sent one vessel 150 Tons with 
20 Men and she brought home as her seasons work 70 Bbls of mackerel. 
as that fishery has been the last 5 years to pursue it would be ratnous. 
Our Vessels enter British waters only for supplies & Bait for which we 


pay cash 
“tl MICHAEL WALEN 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this fourth day of June IS77 
(Seal.). DAVID W. LOW 
Votary In! lic 


No. 50. 


This is to certify, that the undersigned, composing the firm of Pettin- 
gill & Cunningham have been engaged in the fishing business for the 
past Fourteen years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the W asbington 

-- Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
- follows: 


. Six 

7 ‘No. f Vi ] ] ed eS tueOcne oaks SSIS NO Ole pete ae mane 2 ei ase.eues 
~ No. of Trips nc Seecatastche ste from five to six each vessel yearly 
_ No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...-- foeseetereresees Six in — 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.......-+- eer 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, gag ting «a 


ai ing Magdalene Islands ae ereieh el ecevelacs Sn CO, Be eh te 


— a OO 
7  Y 
+ * 
or 
-_ 
aa) 


3114 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Average value of Vessels each...-...---- ereettatets Five thousand Dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c. 
$1000 per Bay trip $3000 yearly each vessel 


Average value of Insurance. ..... aneeee _ ..'.--$300 per year each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.... $35 
Average value of Commissions, & ...-.....-. $200 each vessel yearly 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore.$10, 000 


Neat berok VesSsela Ont cs cect cee ose wee ahem asl son eae secretes One 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ...........0--..e-e00. $7, 000 
WielGG: Of SUAS HOB sige Serco eu cita'at tude a wie a saree erro Oa ee ena $1, 500 
INUMIDERIOL LsIVOS 1OSU re ako oes Stiri od Mersin dG srercitian ee wees he Eleven 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ere 
1,50 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
DD) aoe ws eae ho ore betes ee tesrscme, ache ona u waa see '. .82,50 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... None 
Total value of Mackerel do .........---.-. shar oles terete $3,000 

rary 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel -... Je see 
aie ae Ree Nol No2 No3 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel........-...-. $12 $8 36 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year -.......-.-. $300 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice and various supplies 
500 each vessel or $3000 yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring......-...-.. $400 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages......-....... $5000 yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs .........-.....-.. LOO a Hx. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Georges Grand Western La Have Bks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
- American Shores north of Cape May 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking. ........-.... Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken........-. Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


For the last three years we have been obliged to send all our vessels 
Bank Fishing putting into British ports for supplies &¢ The mackerel 
fishery in the Bay of St Lawrence falling off so much in quantity and 
quality as to make it impossible for American Vessels with their cost 
and equipment to pay their expenses. 

CHARLES D PETTINGELL. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this fifth day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 
No. 51. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of B. Mad- 
docks & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past nine 
years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. Of Pring Madea, Seecce sos aac Three hundred & Sixty four (364) 


No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.............ce00.- Twenty one (21) | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3115 


No. of Barrels of 
Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
No. of Barrels of Mack Forty six hundred (4600) 
; ereleauah : Ps 4 jundred (4600) 
“gap Sama Islands ght within 3 miles of shore, not including 
ot more than one fourth 
ar >S 
Average value of Vessels each . @) sas a Be) St Lawrence mack’! 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e. © Hundred ($4500) dollars 
S ; bf * 
$4300, pr year or $700, Trip for each Vessel (#1200, f 
Average value of Insurance t (31200, for each Bay Trip). 
Four and one half pr 
ee erucateala : @ half pr cent pr year for Six } 

g e of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz, wages per mo ve 
Average value of Commissions, &¢ ..... Seon a . pa oe 
per ereee. value of Wharves, Fish-houses, ‘&e ioe Hite very ax a 

neluding ex Serre As ae fay and packing, 
g expenses of Hea ui eiaaeah ane labor on bapa s 
SER Pe a aac ousand ($16,000.00) dollars pr Year 
Value of Vessels lost, including puna oe dee Se peas Rome (a) 
male oF (Kish lost. eeics eons Ac: eee iy Wena fbi, aciays 
per Di lines loshacnt: 4 24. ‘ dpi Neca Seip 
otal value of Fish taken, before cur fan eal Sheed aby Geta Sel 
; ore curing, splitting, salting, Xc. pe 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before aude Siar alcee: ad sel 
: bbl. But no fish and very few mack 5 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of Babee 
Impossi ake ec oa 
Total value of Mackerel do.......... cieaiti - sic earae aa 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Eleven doll: i 
pocaee market value of Bay Mackerel...-. Eight 5%, flee ie pie 
verage earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two hundred & seventy five 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various benoit 
: Three Thousand i F 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ieee cia 
i oe Two thousand dollars pr. Y 
pount paid to British fishermen as wages .... .Two riodkalie Goftans 
mount paid in British ports for repairs: .. Twenty six hundred dollars 
ee ations frequented by American vessels for Tish 
eorges, Sable Island, and Grand Banks, & Gulf and Bay St. Lawrence 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
; Atlantic Coast from Cape Hatteras to Eastport Me 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ..-....----- | .. None 
~ Sheep value of Mackerel in the water, before taken ........... None 
aay to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish 
‘ We employed a part of our fleet in the Bay St. Lawre 
uring the years of 1871-2-3, and found it to be a loseing business, and 
pSince 1873 we have employed our vessels in the Grand Banks & Georges 
and American Shore fisheries with the exception of one Trip to the Bay 
St Lawrence, in 1874, which did not pay one half thee 
2 — and we consider the Bay St. Lawrence fisheries entirely worth- 
ess to us, and have so considered them for the past four or five Years. 
BENJ. MADDOCKS B. MADDOCKS & OO. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this fourth day of June 1877 
DAVID W. LOW 


(Seal.) 
Notary Public 


nee fisheries, 


‘ 


Xpenses of the 


| 
| 
| 


| 
3116 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 
No. 52. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, conposing the firm of Geo | 
Dennis & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past ten | 
years, at Gloucester and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: | 


NGOF VN CkSe SCI PLOVOOs care. ch wage wile a hte mete See see ota Eight | 
INO; Of CDPIPS acters acms sates on srr oe ele «.-..4 trips yearly Each Vessel | 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 

1872—1 trip 1873—1 trip 1874—2 trips 1875—1 trip 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 


93 Bls — 943 — 505, 80 Bls 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel cauzht within 3 miles of. shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands..........-.... Se eitcioe wine eaicier oale we None 
Average value: of Vessels Gach «22% oo. vistas eo tures aeons ees 4000, 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, & .........-.-.... 600 each trip 
Average value of Insurance.... 200 9 per cts on Vessell & Outfitts 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages pcr mo. 
forty Dollars 
Average value of Commissions, &c¢ ..........-. Three hundred Dollars 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
fifteen Thousand Dols 
Number of Vessels lost... 0.) 6 seccens Sad Pease heme nae None 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost . 
Number of Lives lost : 
Total value of Fsh taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per cwt- 
(50) fifty cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 


NOE Ware cic eta eal aye G aiale atainiginid daa elola eae MeeVee ae aaa Three Dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
Total yaino ol -Mackerel 06-5 2. 1 .c-cae oe wena sere ees 6 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel... .. -- Ten Dollars 

$16—$12—$8 
$11—$87—$5 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ...............- Seven Dollars 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two hundred Dollars 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Each year Eight hundred Dollars 
Amount paid to British fishermen 
for lettings eke oe “6 Five 5 = 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
8 men forty Dollars per month 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs.. Twenty one hundred Dollars 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Bank. Grand Bank. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Gulf of St Lawrence to cape May 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .........- * 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Americ n fish- 
eries 
Lines & Trawls & Hand lines are used for taking fish 


ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3117 


Our vessells are mostly confined to Ocean Bank j 
ye re anks for Fish. wed 
not take any fish in British waters. the Bay St. Lawrence hibectes 
have proved a falier in our experiance. Vessells sent their for the past 
five years have not paid their expenses and to continue the Business in 
that Direction would prove Ruinous. 
GEO DENNIS 
GEORGE TUCKER 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31st day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 
No. 53. ‘ 


This is to certify, that the undersigned, Joseph O. Procter bas been 
engaged in the fishing business for the past Thirty years, at Gloucester, 
Mass. and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in ef. 
fect, my vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels PIN MOYO 8: t..ccttiand oo ciaaan ee unete eek Thirteen 

is POSEN) od Wg F019) (1: cee aa ge ae Six yearly to each vessel—78 
1872 73 74 735 % 

No. of Trips to Bay of St. Lawrence ........... ae See |) Soe ee 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
7.486 Bbls in 5 years or 211 Bbls per trip on the average. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


t EAC OMOM Cr SLANG: , cis «cack geo thats Soa 3 Me ae ce ao Dena Soaks ee 
me, AVerage value of Vessels Gach. . 2... ce cscccccs cassccsceearent 5.000 
i Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..$3.500.00 yearly to each vessel 

Average value of Insurance .....- .......%300.00 yearly to each vessel 


t 

| Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
| $35. pr month 
_ Average value of Commissions, We.......-.$200.00 pr Vessel per year 
{ Average value of Wharves, Fish-bouses, &c., for curing and packing, 


including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore .850,000,00 


| 
| Number of vessels lost ......-... eee PPR er ROE? tie Three 
| ~-Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ....... Fifteen thousand dollars 
| I BIO Oh NIST JOSb oe. caietes< Zine Sie ins bab wire ews Four thousand dollars 
De NUM DOr OF LANG: LOSE sos ico 35s ics tayo Sn eiue eae caw ea aeegs . Fifteen 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
ie from 50 to 81.00, 


Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 


[11 ) Bee 5 pate ty oie eS ne ee OE eT ee re ei Ty Two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores . .. None 
Total value of Mackerel do ......------ $6,850, delivered at Gloncester 


_ Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Ai 4 No. 1, $16. No. 2=$12. No. 3—88.00 


se mark ay Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay — ‘912, No. 2=8, No. 3~96— 


| Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
» 8 8 I Three hundred dollars 


= id i itish ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
___ Average amount paid in British p y Ice, 8 1,800.—yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.-.-.--- £900 each Season 
- Amount paid to British fishermen as wages wethin 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs «.-------++eeee5 eee" g 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Caprges eee Querau, St Peters and other Banks off Shore 


| in pe NE 
ioe ~ ° 


> 
3118 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape Henry to Cape Northe. Cape Breton 
Actual value of Fish in asus eae No value. Costs all they 

be 5 j 2 
Actual vaiue of Mackerel i the water, { them for oe, and prepare 
efore taken 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
fisheries 

Since the year 1870 the number of vessels using the Bay of St Law- 
rence for Mackerel catching has been gradually reduced from about 500 
to less than 60 vessels from the United States; the Mackerel being poor 
‘and in small quantity; while on our Shores Mack’! have been more 
plenty, of better quality, and a large fleet engaged from April 25th to 
Noy. 10th. All the Vessels on our Shore now use the Seine, and none, 
the hook and line as formerly. Seining has not been successfully car- 
ried on in the Bay of St Lawrence, the shoalness of the water and the 
unevenness of the bottom, where the few Mack’! there tend; has made 
every voyage unsuccessful, and caused an abandonment of the business. 
There will probably be less Vessels in the Bay this Season than any 
season during the last Forty. Our Cod fisheries are deep Sea fisheries, 


and outside of all local jurisdiction. 
JOSEPH O. PROCTER. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this fifth day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


No. 54. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Samuel 
Haskell have been engaged in the fishing business for the past fifteen 
years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


ING: OF Vessels CMmplOyed -ssisocccaae tS5 ties eae ee ne ee J aie aicieva aes Six. 
No. of Trips made..Seven & 8 trips yearly to each Vessel, total 5 yrs 223 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence. .4_ 2 3 0 0 total 9 
No. Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
1872 1873 . 1874 : 

1100 bls 420 bls 383 bls total 3 yrs 1903 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Mapdalone Islands ie coes thas ctu Ge ee ace aes 125 Bbls 
Average value of Vessels each..............-. five thousand Dollars. 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e.... $2700 to each vessel yearly 
Average value of Insurance.................- $200 each vessel yearly 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Captain $70 Crews $30 each 
Average value of Commission, & .........eeccsccees $200 each vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 


$12000 yearly 

Namberot Vesselslost 2 <:snces sen vcasa cls cee seca Gecees ee aece: One 
Value of Vessels lost,including ontfits.c.<sc.00-castesre<eoscee $6500 
MAING OURBD JORG 7a. fonds hes uate ons Sau eck ees eee mes $600 
IV GMNNGEIGE AID ON 1OSb oe Ging 50 hace os usascchia vet a wer oe a ee - Ten 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per ewt. 
One Dollar 


ies 


— 


wl | 


i 
3 ut 


aw 


No. of trips to Bay St. Lawrence.....--.+--- 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay of St. 


_ Average value of Vessels each....--+--+-++sre cere 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Mc.-------+s2++= 
_ Average value of Insurance ..---------++++77"* 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3119 


Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing 


g, splitting, salting, &e. 

per bbl..........-..... Dp astente cai rSen Ata aree : sets be oe $2.50 cg 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... Noue 
Total value of Mackerel do............. $1100 delivered at Gloucester 


Average market valne of American Shore Mackerel 
No 1.816 No2?. 812, No3 8s 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel i j 
j ; No. 1 $12 No 2,%8 No3, 86 I sold for 810,85 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year... .8275 at iny place 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$200 each vessel yearly. total 81200 yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.......... 600 each year 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages..........-......... None 
Amount paidin British ports for repairs.............. cicla, ae, ay ENON 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand, Western, La, have, Georges Banks 
Loeations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape May to Eastport & Bay St Lawrence 


- Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken..........Nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 
eries : , 
Have sent no vessels into the Bay of St Lawrence the last two 
years, the Bay fishing does not pay the expenses. The last years I had 
vessels there in 73 & 74 they did not pay for their outfits The Mack- 


- erel are poor worth 4d less than shore mackerel it is a bad place to use 


a seine a long time is required for a trip and to: pursue the Bay fishery, 


and that alone, would fail any firm in Gloucester. It is entirely & prac- 
_ tically useless to us as a fishery. The Halibut and cod fishery are en- 


tirely Bank fisheries owing no allegience to any Government 
SAML HASKELL 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1577 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public. 


This is to certify, That the-undersigned, composing the firm of Joseph 


- Friend have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 40 years, 
~ at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 


has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed 8..-.-.-. +--+ ve--2seeeeees 12 men each vessell 
mo. of Trips made.......--------s-seece errs seesss 


.6 to each Vessell 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
4 3 l 0 0 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 


Ke o oo 
ET OTION oe cr oo oa ere belo ie Sis se isin ei 1500 1200 220 0 0 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdelene Islands....-.- Re ee Tee about one-tenth 


9 & on vessels & outfits 
s per mo. .35 each 


Cet, : Eo es » viz.. Wage 
and crews’ time, viz., Wi 
Average value of Captains 1 712i Oe an 


Average value of Commissions, XC. »---++++++* medi 


3120 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. . .$20000 


Namber of Vessels lO8t..sc <screws gang. oe eee ee one in Bay. St. Lawrence 
Value of vessels lost, including outfits ........-..... etnias . 7000 
Value ot Fish 10st csc os ona ore. Ua Rieielo etry ala ste ores ie a oe adie ome ee none 
Nimler OF Dives OStas4.c ve oon wees ene set See en as ee 12 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per cwt. .50 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 


Per Dl she oe mie ese Sea ee ae eee 6 yea eee es eee na 1.50 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores ....none 
Total value of Mackerel doc .0226 cia soos os scp ch oma as oe 600, 

Nos 1 2 8 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........ 16, 12, 8, 
Nos. i 258 
Average market value of. Bay Mackerel ..........-- 22%. ¢s% ll. 7. “Se 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year....-....--. $225. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

PNGS: cas aes higcers ce aes es dale eek taeda Dees eee 900.00 — 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ........-. 7000.00 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages ............ 200.00 do 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Banks & Georges 
Locations frequented by American vessels for mackerel 
from Cape May to Gulf of St. Law. 
Actual value of Fish ip the water, before taking ............. nothing. 
Actual value of mackerel in the water, before taken ..........-. do 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
Years ago we sent meny, vessels to the Bay, of, St Lawrence for 
Mackerel but for, the last five years the business has proved so unprofit- 
able we cannot pursue it my, vessels are now confined to the Ocean 
banks and our own shores intirely our shore Mackerel being much, 
superior in quality and being taken with Seins realize a larger profit - 
then any, other Mackerel fishery my, vessels enter British waters only, 
for. Bait suplies and Herring for, which I, pay, cash to the Inhabitants 
JOSEPH FRIEND 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of June 1877 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 

No. 56. . 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Sam- 
uel Lane & Bro have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
thirteen years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


Nos Gf Vessélsiomployed < f0.0/.5.4 cose wanes eo eee gost. 25 ee 
NGCOE Dripa MANS cose air kev sve ua ake oe ee 252 5 
No. GE Prips to. Bay Sti awronces:c.55.-60 cases eo hee ose ss seed 10/9 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.....-.------+- 2500 | 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
including Magdalene Islands.............0e- Cece waces b= efi 100 
Average value of Vessels each ............ jor cle eee te aetecd $4000 
Average value of Ontfits, Salt, Bait, &6.....0..sceceeescenecsen $800 


ANeragovalue Of: InsuvanGe sis os. c0cnende ellen be es .-.--» $3500) 


‘&, 


Sy GUNG aia ainlslwa rea. aas Weta ate gi'g Ak ik or ®175 
Average value of Wharves, Fish houses, &c., for curing and packing, 


including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors aud labor on shore. $27000 


Number of Vessels lost.......... Grown aie ina ek tae te ok l 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfts....... ................_ 45700 
OS Sy 11 CO oS a aa gh A ae ee erp So none 
MERE DOL OF VOS: LOBU 2500's bss ce iGels oa dt carded cha cc cc nk euest ey 12 
ypaon value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per 

NOW U etal ata fopecaieiniey oicin: <f='o co) sistas areola cieiet tae, ora een aeee aac fa ee en 4 


=e value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per 


2.0 @)* we O18 .w en 'o-~6 68 6.8 @ Ae 


Total value of Mackerel do......... Dae SERGE cis esas edn eae. #300 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel......... peas $12 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel. .................. $7 per Bol. 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year... .#400 per man. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap- 
plies ......... LER U LT eT CET Ce ae eee #950 per Trip. 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring .................. #1500 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
$8750 for mackl. caugh Bay St. Lwrenee. 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs ...... .........2...... $2500 
Locations frequented by American vessels for fish 
none in Bay of St. Lawrence. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
P. E. Island—Magdalene Is—C. B. Is. 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking............ no value. 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken........-. no value. 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 
eries 
Before the year 1871 the Bay of St. Lawrence was some benefit to 
Gloucester Mackerel Fishermen, but since then the mack! have been 
_ more plenty on the American Coast, theretore the Glou mackerel ves- 
sels have been growing less in no every year that formerly engaged in 
the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fishing and have tended the Amer- 
ican coast with seines for mackerel. We consider Fishing in the Bay of 
St. Lawrence of no value. 
SAML LANE SAML LANE & BRO 
GEO. E. LANE} 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of June Isv7 


Seal. DAVID W. LOW | 
Notary Public 


No. 57. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of George 
Steele have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 25 years, 
_at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Lreaty, so called, has 
_ been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


' No. of Vessels employed .-.------+-++++-+- +" tec re a eae ae 
z No. of Trips made een Mawlatsmias mane ee ae ae "19 + : ae 

= No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...-.---+-+-sses7eeerere* , 5000 

’ No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence ....----- _— fan 
~ No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not ppt 


ing Magdalene Islas ....-+.--- ss seer errr pyar 
196 F ; 


4 


3122 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

Average value of Vessels each ....-.----.-+-+++---+- pe ra $6500. 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..........-...... 800. each trip 
Average value of Insurance.....--.------- 9% on value vessel & outfit 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo...$40. 
Average value of Commissions, &C......--.-.------- $350. each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. $28000, 


Number or Vessels 10st 2 ccc. oars cts cremains pian, vas tc ntit Mie a icone ae og 5 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits...... Bee sire sneace about $45000. 

Value of Fish lost 

INDDOI OF LIVES NONG i> ts eae panies rete tere area roena a weletiele a tas 63 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
OWbwrs ce ore oe & hie 5 dca ete eae ately iors s na aes at deere a 50 cents 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 
Pel VOhe css sets ca cupne yeerec cs ay ces aeee een we anes $1.00 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. moving 
Total wale Gf Mackerel CG. 6:545. cut easaeainciet oe cle mas a6 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel .... $16 $12 $8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel........... Aree. pl ee ie tS 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ...... s+ $250. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
8) | ot: Se RR enn Baer PRA SeteY anne Th EGC $200. per vessel yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages .... $50. per vessel yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs. $750. per year for past 6 years 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
. Georges, Browns, Le Have & Grand Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
from Cape May to Gulf St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..... Shad acters 2 nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken. ........ nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
Hand lining has about given way to Trawls and Seines. The Bay of ~ 
St. Lawrence fishing for Mackerel has not proved profitable; it has 
been gradually falling off for several years and vessels there do not now 
pay expenses. One vessel there last year for 3 mos with 16 men only 
packed out 69 Barrels. Our vessels pursue the deep water fishing on 
the Banks bordering the Gulf Stream and outside the jurisdiction of 
any nation. 


GEORGE STEELE. 


Sworn and subscribed to before we, this second day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 
No. 58. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Cun- 
ningham & Thompson have been engaged in the fishing business for the i 
past six years at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 

NG: OF Vessels employed <2 res u5 cue sacosindi aceon vo ee es Ten, (10) 


No. of Trips SHUG 2 ai: ccs wate eds ha es -.- Seven yearly to each Vessel 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence. < Sings Swab tel Ten from 1870 to 1874 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3123 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
Three thousand, ®: 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore cori celyaras 
Magdalene Islands.............. 0... ccccccun cence veces 200 Kibia 
Average value of Vessels each ........... Petes ete ee eae $6,500 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e. ich 
$1,000 for Bay trip. Average, 3,000 yearly 
Average value of Insurance.............. 9 per ct on Vessel & Outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo....@40 
Average value of Commissions, &e. 
4 pr ct on gross stock about $200 each vessel, 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, in- 
cluding expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. 
Appurtanences $22,000 Labor $5000 per Annum 


MUNDO OL VeSSCIS 1086.2. soa aveeeac tk be oGecce cee uieeawemes Three. 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits........... ...-2. 0.00. #18,000 
«UE NUG Ci 8 TL) (11) (pe a a el a ge en CO Oe #7000 
Mum Der OF DIVES LOSbin2 «25.0% Sink Sines aes oe Sak aah eS seek. Fifteen 
Total value of Tish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 
CWlresett a RNS LSE Sheer aS eie Rate ere had eea ay iat an tei ae ee ee eee S ... octs 
on value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &ec., per 
aicreteunsa pete eral aus el oivos aie bev ciate Te ate railen ale iirc savieyaie aun alate [ovat clave iologi ow eciee WE Oe 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
OLS VOING. Of AaCK Orel C0 cawcy saver -<ee skies eadbis oes se atiaeene S400 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 

815 No. 1 812 No2 88 No3 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel..... $11 Nol &7 No2 85 No3 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ........... 200) 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring...........-. #500 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages..........-- $150 per year. 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs.........-...... 31000 yearly 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
. ; Western, Georges, and Grand Bank 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Long Island to Newfoundland 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking. ...--.++---- No value 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......-. No value 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 
eries } 

We have had no Vessels in the Bay of St. Lawrence since I5¢4 and at 
no time in the last 7 years have our vessels that went there paid their 
expenses, the privelege of fishing within three miles of | 
is of no value whatever Over one half of our Fishermen are 
the Dominion employed by our Capital in our vessels and deriving 
maintainence therefrom, We consider the privelege of our free markets 
vastly in excess of value of any concessions of shore fishing ‘given by the 


ee SYLVESTER CUNNINGHAM 
WILLIAM THOMPSON 


i is sec ; 1877 
Sworn bscribed to before me, this second day of June 
aaa DAVID W. LOW 


2 Satelit Notary Public 


sritish shores 
natives of 


3124 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 59. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Dennis 


& Ayer have been engaged in the fishiug business for the past twelve : 


years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


ING:-OF- VESHOIS GMNDIOS EO 5.55.0 er ee oa ene we memoes Fourteen 
Now of Trips" Madey. ac. secee Eighty per year for all of the Vessels 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence....... isineeees) DbMsinEe STL 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
Eighteeu hundred Bbls 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalene [slangsitcoie icc S 6 adc ort Meh a Re eis None 
Average value of Vessels each.............--+.. Six thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c......... One thousand dollars 
Average value of Insurance..........2. 22.2200. Five thousand dollars 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Thirty dollars 


Average value of Commissions, &c....four per cent. to Capt. of Vessel | 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of .Clerks, et ae and labor on shore 
Forty thousand dollars 


Numberiof Vessels 108t ss 508 .405 526 bee aeeausie ve eee eeeees One 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits..... ... Eight thousand dollars 
Valoe of Fish J0s8t .5cccccde cise secds weecrce ee ee one thousand do 
Nomber of LAves: 1086: oo wise whe ors oh Gane comes eons Peeters Twelve 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
OWS tee ete teks clea biG eres he bea ee ae ee ee ee One dollars 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 
POP DUE owes sacin cick sa shatins ce nae eee wee Two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. ...None 
Total value of Mackerel de ..c<.5 4... Scars see eee ees None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel pcos Ten dollars - 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel........ Eight dollars per Bbls 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year : 
Two hundred & Seventy-five dollars. 
Average amount paidin British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

PNGR usc cok cee eae Two hundred dollars per year for each vessel. 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

One thousand dollars per Year Newfoundlan 
Amount paid to British fishermen as WAGES. .----2 eee eee eee eee None 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs....one thousand dollars 1873. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Georges La Haven Western & Grand Bank’s 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

Coast of the United States & Gulf St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 

Within last three years we have not had any Vessels engaged in 
Fishing in British Waters either for Cod or Mackeral. 

The Mack! fishing being done on the Coast of the United States from 
New Jersey to and along the Eastern Coast of Maine and those engaged 
in Cod Fishing on Georgies Western Le Have & Grand Banks not resort- 
ing to British W aters except to purchase Bait and occasionally for Ice. 


s 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3124 


The Gulf of St Lawrence Fishery is so improftable that we consider 
it an entire failure. 

JAMES S AYER. DENNIS & AYER 

JOHN G DENNIS 


{ 

| 

| Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31st day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 

| Notary Public 


No. 60. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of 


; : ; have been 
| engaged in the fishing business for the past 


years, at and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 

Heo. Of Vessels employed... ............ ccccncccececccces ccc ce SOTER 
MOR OU CIS BOG cis doclaisia pale asd a7 san came bak aes . Thirty five Yearly 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.............. Two in 1873 none since 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.........-.. -. 400 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

p PEARURIOHO IAIANGS: 2% ois atecsined Savane oa visit laste siecle lee eh ew ate None 
Average value of Vessels each........ .c...e ec cce cece poten asa $5800, 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e.......... cece eee eoeee #500, 
Average value of Insurance................ $4400, or about 9 per cent 

_| Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per 

f WIG ee ile x yin Sasser iesee ics $35, $200.00 each vessel 

| Average value of Commissions, &c. .4 per cent on Gross Stock to Skipper 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. . 8 LS5000, 

META DOY OF “V-GSSCIS OSE. = 20s 5.< 25 cas ch weein yc cass.c cess Sau t8eeee ess One 

| Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.............---- See Poe $6400 
immmevalue of Fish lost.........-.-..cceecsesee secceecscecee ccs cns NODO 
ueamber of Lives lost..... ..-......c.ceecccencceeseecccece es 1 Wel¥e 
‘Total value.of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc, per 
Oise ae ae teste aes aie seas OE He oes Glee eso hore Sees pean Bees 75 cts 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., per 

le Be oe ae aa Se eet aie ic ae ay eee ae ae eucte easly He eee $1.00 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 

| | otal value of Mackerel do........-..---02+ ce ceeteeeer cess None 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel eeu? 
f $14. for ones #12, for twos $5, for threes 


_ Average market value of Bay Mackerel ee : 
$11, for ones $5, for twos &6, for threes 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year... ------> #250, 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
CITES eS RP nen pe SIRO cr Orie Ta mn 8400, Yearly 

_ Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

-- Amount paid to British fishermen AS WAZES..- +++ +205 -s: 

- Amount paid in British ports for Epes fare 

¢ i J American vessels for Fish 

- eons poe Gr. Bank La Have Banks 


“Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


&220, Yearly 


Cape May to Bay St a 
; ish i ing... suveeese eae Nothin 
_ Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.....-- ere 


_ Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.........- 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
The Bay of St Lawrence fishery has proved a failure in my experi- 
ence my vessels not having paid their bills or expenses consequently I 
now confine my vessels to our owu Shores for Mackerel and the Ocean 
Banks for fish My vessels do not enter British Waters except for Bait 
or supplies ‘ 
WM. C. WONSON 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


3126 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


-~ 


No: 61, 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of 
have been engaged in the fishing business for the past years, at 
and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been 
in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed..... PR en ee ie are oh eee (5) Five 
ING: OL Tried MAdG: x... nce sea 231 Codfish trips. 17 mackerel Trips 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...........+s.. bea sade ears (11) Eleven. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence...._...........2301 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

Magdalene Islands........... sister tals Most caught off Magdalenes. 
Averaxe Valie:ol) VeSNelS 656.3 ec oe eee eee ee $6.000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Ge ... 2.0... 000 peewee $2.000 
Average value of Insurance ............ 0.006 9% on Vessel & Outfits. 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. $40 
Average value of Commissions, &.............----- $200 each Sch’r. 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and: labor on shore. $18,000 


Wamber: of Vessels lost. ccc vac ecnieccn Gaeate aed ean ee ues (1) one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ......0.-..2.ee.eee-e- - $7.000 
Value. ot ish 10st... cele dake negation aces ce eset: $500 
Number of Lives lost............ Bae btay aee tl eter etate en ee none 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c per ewt. 
i 75 ¢ 

a value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Bi aein Ai orale wicmcaahare stints aca eres ata/van/gicc Ski Shewata aiont eye Rintate ate eee is $2.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores no fish 
Total-value or Mackerel do; 23.1%: sched oh oveese oot uaess $500. 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
$16 Nols $12 no2’s $8no3 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
$1175 nol $7.50 no2 $5.50 no 3s 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year........ $200— 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$100—yearly. 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish — é 

: Grand Bank—Georges Bank— 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

Cape May & Gulf St Lawrence 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ..........-.+: nothipg 


i 


q 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. $127 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conduct 
_. eries 
Have withdrawn vessels from Bay on ace of being unprofitable— 
business to pursue. 
Our codfishing is pursued on Ocean Banks within no national Juris. 
diction 
Our vessels do not go in British water except to purchase Bait & 
supplies 


oe eeee eee nothing 
ing American fish. 


EPES SAYWARD Jr, 
GEO SAYWARD 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
; Notary Public 
No. 62. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Daniel 
Sayward have been engaged in the fishing business for the past thirteen 
years, at Gloucester, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No of Vessels employed................ ee 7 to 5 seven to five 
ONS OP OPA IID 6 08s os oa. c'din Ban Sareea 188 One hundred eighty-eight 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence............ 12 Twelve in five years. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. -..... eer 2398. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands .......... FE ee ey eee TT 00 
Average value of Vessels each.......-.......2- 000-5. #6600, in 1871, 

- Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c............... 800, + 

MVerags VEINS Of INSUTANOCG. < onk cc ccs de tc clcsmcsaais - $775, « 4 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Average value of Commissions, &c. 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor Pe es age 
pL A “ “ 


MING: OF VORBCIA IDAts sc cbc we cs seinnin du aa eadecpead secs eeene 3 
Value of Vessels lost, including outtits.........-------+-.-+++- #18000 
Value of Fish lost : 
mamber Of Lives lost. . 2.260.655. se sces cae: =. etinaesa ts seses ccs 35 

_ Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Ac. per 
OA] an EA ey a ey ae Mar rrr ee et . 75 per bundred 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Bey See Bee ial atny whorl ta RET Sa ag eee #1.50 per bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .-.. coe 
Total value of Mackerel do...-.. -e-ece seen ter ereseessssectee tenes 0 


Average mark lue of American Shore Mackerel ioe 
ae care Ne No.1 $16. No. 2812. No3 68. 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel No. 1 #12. No, 2 $8. No. 3 66, 


- Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..-.-.--.-- $225. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap- 
plies Ah Pe eck (he mE AR eT et aa SOC eI Wd oe S100, yearly 
- Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
' Amount paid to Rritish fishermen as wages 
id i iti for repairs ; 
_ Amount paid in British ports for re} Grand, West- 


_ Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish.....- 
' ern and George’s Banks 


3128 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel...... American 
Shores & Bay St. Lawrence 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.......... Re a 0 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.... -.........-. 0 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
fisheries 

My vessels have not paid their expenses for the last five years while 
employed in taking mackerel at the Bay of St. Lawrence. The quality 
of the mackerel being poor, and the length of the trips making them so 
expensive that I cannot pursue this business to advantage. 

All of my codfishing business is pursued out on the ocean banks out- 
side of the jurisdiction of any nation. Entering British waters only for 
the purchase of bait and supplies. 

DANIEL SAYWARD 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 
No. 63. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of William 
Parsons 2d & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Thirty years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


ING:OL  VeSSOIN CH DIO Y OG sc casio 5.5 actux te eile ae wena Fourteen 
No. of Trips made... Five trips yearly each vessel, Total, 90 trips per year 
1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence... 3 3 £ 2 0 0 
Total 6 years 12 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence...... Two thousand 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
In2 Magdalene Islands:..2% csc vies an estes seals Sees 250 Bbls 
Average value of vessels each ................- Five thousand Dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c...-$2800 yearly to each vessel 7 
Average value of Insurance ..............- $300 yearly to each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. ..$35 
Average value of Commissions, &c....... 2. se. sceeee $200 each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor ou shore 
Twenty thousand Dollars, yearly 


Nambéer.of vessels loeb. iors oss ena eee oe ee ek ree One 
Value of vessels lost, including outfits..... -...-Seven thousand Dollars 
WaluG or Dish lO8ti;:ccsu2tscsalnsees ace ee -.-.Two thousand * 
Wumber of Lives 1086. ac 02. coco ee ee ah ehe Goa te adudle ruiesiais fourteen 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. 

POR CW ar asa cd Je fans ce g Sistema alviete mates Sime ee eek ark sata oars een 4st OC 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 

Eis DED DD sce ea tens os wena ea eee eee tee ae hae $2,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
Total value of Mackerel do..........-....-- 2500 in Gloucester Market 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 

We sold for $15 $10 $8 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel 


We sold for No 1 $10 No 2 $8 No 3 $6 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 


$200 at one place 


Oe Ae 


= - 
Beaver of Vessels lost. ...---0-sse seer eeeee® Sener 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3129 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 


PME OM MORAG Sociale nosis dacs wuycgled Sass fe Akan cores As S2800 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring... .. . em 81,000 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages............... : "None 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs................) five Hundred 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 


Georges Grand Western La Have Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


from Long Island to Newfoundland 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken. ......... Nothing 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
fisheries 


For the past eight years fishing in British waters has been a total 
failure We have tried it thoroughly & completely—and our veasels 
sent to the Bay have not paid their expenses. American fishermen 
would have been much better off never to have gone into those waters 
Seining has superseded the Hook & line fishing for Mackerel, the best 
mackerel are off our own coasts nearer our markets, our vessels make 
short trips, the mackerel are in better condition, We have sent no ves- 
sels in the Bay the last two years, No Codfish are taken by our vessels 
inside of British limits 

THOMAS L. PARSONS 
EBEN PARSONS 2d 
GEORGE PARSONS 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31st day of May 1877. 
DAVID W. LOW 
(Seal.) Notary Public 
ho. 64. 
This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Won- 
son & Co., have been engaged in the fishing business for the past twen- 


ty five years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 


~ go called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed ......-05 cee cere nce see er eee ece: Ten (10) 

Se No. of Trips made....... Spe tary ge AS five each vessel yearly 

- No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.-.------- 1872 1873 1874 15875 ee 
» » ” ” 


& 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 350, 400, 525, 500, 1) 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclading 

Magdalene Islands 


é 
E 


Mackerel caught at the Magdelens 


Average value of Vessels each. .----+ +--+ +++: Reece 95000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Wousess #3000 yearly each vesse 
Average value of Insurance. .-.+---+--- 9 per cent on Vesgel & staged 


_ Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages | 04 eae veasel 
Average value of Commissions, XC... +++ -+ +++ 0-70 *" 200 each 
- Average value of Wharves, Fish-hous 
_- including expenses of Clerks, Proprie 
None 
Value of Vessels lost, including outtits.--.----- 


Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 


3130 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 
CW ca we Hire ne Cu ieetay,s cae care Sete 8 Ga Ouraateieieras Mate aerate ares 75 cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, ae per 
Phi eee eal te asevies hee aoa cieaeeecter aes cision eats 1. 00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. None 
Tétal value of Mackerel. osc sc00 costes es weeee ene ns recy ss None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel...... 16 10 8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.......-... Pe ees li 8. -@ 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.... $250 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, 
ANG VAriONSs SOU PGS sai ace cadoc ace erare saan < 200 each vessel yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
$600 to $800 for 4 vessels each yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
; Grand Bank & Georges 
Locations frequented by American vessels 
Cape May to Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken............ Nothing. 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
Our vessels have been Cod fishing on the Banks & Mackereling mostly 
off our own shores, The Bay of St Lawrence fishery has constantly grown 
poorer Our vessels did not pay their expenses shall send no vessels 
there this year Our own Shore Mackerel are worth a third more than 
Bay Mackerel, Weare using Seines where we formerly used Hooks & 
lines, The Cod fishery is pursued on the Banks bordering on the Gulf 
Stream many miles from any shores and within no National jurisdiction 
WONSON BROTHERS 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31st day of May 1877. 
W.S. WONSON 
(Seal.) S G WONSON JR 


DAVID W. LOW. 
Notary Publie 


No. 65. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Geo 
Norwood & Son have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Fifteen years, at Gloucester Mass. and that since the Washin gton Treaty, 
i called. has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as fol- 
OWS: 


No. of Vessels employed. . AS cache ale osave ate e.aivig ste as ewe ister ece eC 
NGJOk Erips Magen o.i3.0 sec cscs Katara eee eee ree re . Forty 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Law rence p ebkpoan cin ae ceseies Sixteen since 1871 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. feuacuce 
Thirty-Six Hundred Barrels 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalen Tslands 4.64 eo. pe een cack eae aie aieaacie ce wena None 
Average value of .Vessels each. ........-.-ccece- Six Thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c...-...... One Thousand dollars 


Average value of Insurance........... REE Five Thousand dollars 


ft: ; AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 313°: 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 

oa 5 Thirty dollata 
Average value of Commissions, &c.. four per cent. to. Captain of Vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors, and labor on shore 
Twenty thousand doll 

Number of Vessels lost................000. 0000005, apa i ’ Mens 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits. 
Value of Fish lost. 


Number of lives lost........ Meena ea ha aia eae ees eres 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 

Oe crete ate cieid Barston acacia eine ha enna ate c sialon eee One dollar 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 

RNIN aa anh ix ae wks iarhe Pe RES idatedee a ae. waleietnia os Two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... .Nothing 
mae Vane OF Mackerel d0 i): 2066 6s.cc0:0: 09 ve cssnes'es es NORMRE 


Average market valueof American Shore Mackerel . Ten dollars per Barrel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel........Eight dollars per barrel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two hundred & fifty dollars 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Two hundred dollars per year for each Vessel 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages........--...--..++55 None 
| Amount paid in British ports for repairs. . Four hundred dollars Since 1371 
| Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Georges, Grand, Western, & La Have, Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Coast of United States & Gulf St. Lawrence 


| Actual value of Fish in the water before taking....-. ne oie eas Nothing 

- Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken..........-Nothing 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of condacting American fish- 
eries. 


| We have not had any Vessels engaged in British Waters fishing since 


1873 
GEO NORWOOD 
FREDERIC NORWOOD 


. Sworn and subscribed to betore me, this thirty first day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


No. 66. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Leon- 
- ard Walen have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Tea 
_ years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington r reaty, 80 

called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


Fs e664 Four 

| No. of vessels employed....--------se-ee tree 24 each y 

' No. of Trips ade : * Six trips yearly each vessel, Total, 24 bec 1873 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence....-------++rreer rte o.: 3 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence ....---- vi a 

. No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught witbin 3 miles of shore, not ine o on? 

| Magdalene Islands .......-------+++70777 777" nn ainen anneal 


Average value of Vessels each .-.------- ol yy ses eee ane 


> Ay f Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e 
a erage value of Ou paige Bay trip. (#3000 each vessel ye 


Se 


* F ol 
. =i 
7 — 
a | 
i 


3132 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 

Average value of Insurance...--...-.-- pee eee : 300 each vessel yearly 
Averege value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. ..$35 
Average value of Commissions, Wc ...-.----+-.------- 200 each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. $11, 000 


Number of  rasacla 1OSE cates sak eo ene ee eee Three 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits..............--..-...- $21, 000 
Waluerot Eb ISh 1OBb 2.cs7as:< 4a meee airs Fens Setnierr <-ns $4, 000 
Number Of TAVEGS ORG. <6.42 5s tose nes eee arenas anata Twenty six 
Total value of fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. Ped 
1,00 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., 
PGE DU vos 2c ates we Seine eh eres wos eee eer h eas nee ae cise $2,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
Total valuG-Gb MaGGCKGrel G0. ...8 oan csc tans coe nse sce snoeces None 


Average market value of American shore mackerel 
No 1 $16 No 2, $12, No. 3, $8 
Average market value Bay Mackerel 
I sold for No 1 $12, No 2, $8 No 3 $6, 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.. $300 per year 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$2,300 Yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ....-.-.-.--....-. None 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages ......-...----- .---.None 
A mont paid in Britash ports: for repairs: scan se ose en ees ae $300 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish _ 
Grand Banks, Western, Georges, La Have 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Long Island Sound to Bay St Lawrence along shore 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
The Fisheries and the mode of taking has changed much in ten years, - 
formerly the shore fisheries were used when hand lines and hooks were 
used now fish are taken on the Banks with trawls and Mackerel with 
seines, Our vessels are the best that can be built and go everywhere 
on the Ocean Banks for fish the fish are met and taken on the Banks 
nearest the Gulfstream as they come on the Banks to spawn, the Bay 
of St Lawrence is entirely unprofitable to American fishermen owing || 
to the great expense of running the vessels and the poor quality and || 
quantity of fish & Mackerel there. ; 
LEONARD WALEN 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1877 | 


(Seal.) DAVID W LOW 
Notary Publie ‘ 


No. 67. 


Short 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Rowe 
Jordan have been engaged in the fishing business for the past nine— 
years, at Gloucester and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


oe 


RO: Of VORBOIs-OWMPlOY diss cccicaais/onccd Sab ae ee cence oa eea ee oe cae ten 
INOS OF UM DIGUO s 3 . sceset eee tae: eight each year by each vessel 
No. of Trips to Bay St Lawrence...........2...-.0 twenty one (21) 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay of St. Lawrence. .... o-aee. 5462 


— - 


+» 


4, va 
a 


a 


_- This is to certify, That the unde 
-* Knowlton Jr have been engaged in the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3133 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ 
ing Magdalene Islands........ ................... none 
Average value of Vessels each it ph oe}. 
fifty five hundred dollars at p 
yo ars i resent tim 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e. 
one thousand = « 
Average value of Insurance 
__. forty-eight hundred = « 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
ae 3900 each vessel 
Average value of Commissions, &e ........... 2. to Capt. 8350 each 
™. > . . ‘t ' , 
Average value of Wharves, Fish houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expeuses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. 830, 800 


mam DOr- OF V ONSCIS: LOSE i 55.cce a one See deek 2 O54 six during five years 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits...................--.. 45425 
PBUO Oly PIE IOSb asec tan on ia oad eee ce mee we hese tamuahele’ : 87000 
RINGINDORN OL LHWOS) 1ORU sees 2 fea. asi 40a wn aies eu ase s twenty five (25) 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt, 
50c 7800000 Ibs $39.000 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 
bbl. $152 21000 bbls $31.500 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... none 


Petal Valle’ Opa MACK OPGl CO .s.o0: cca oo oscc esate ne snes see gaa ee 6 none 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel... thirteen dollars 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel............ ..... ten dollars 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year........... 275 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$500 a year for each vessel 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs.......-....-----. «++ #1500 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish _ 
Grand Georges Western & Labave Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
. Coast of Maine & Mass Long Island & Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.......-.---- nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken........- “ 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Amer- 
ican fisheries 
During the last four years the facilities for catching macker! have in- 


_ creased so that it does not pay to go for them from our own shores as 
they can be taken in great abundance here & beside the chances of 


getting them in Bay of St Lawrence & adjacent waters seem to grow 
less, or at all events the chances for getting either Mackerel or Cod Fish 
is so very uncertain that it is abandoned almost altogether, the vessels 
that pursued it did so at a heavy pecuniary loss last year & the year 


before— ; 
a JOSEPH ROWE. 
WILLIAM H. JORDAN. 


subscribe before me, this 31st day of May 1877 
‘Beal and subscribed to befe ’ DAVID W. LOW 


Notary Public 
No. 68. 
rsigned, composing the firm of Harvey 
rhe fishing business for the past five 


ae 


3134 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


. " 
| 


years, at Gloucestor Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed ..........-++----- wee ete nee ccc ee teeaee two 
No: of Trips Made: .. -Sv.0s2 ose gece smn ees six each vessel yearly 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence..............--..-- five in five years 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence........... 725 Bbls 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not 

including Magdelene IslandS.....--...+4 2.0226 e--e+-e2e0 none 
Average Value of Vessels 680N.c s5.c.¢5sc veer ose oe sey ene aes 27,000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e.... $3,000 each vessel yearly 
Average value of Insurance........-.....- $300 *& é6 6“ 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo....$40 
Average value of Commissions, &¢........... 250 each vessel yearly 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore... $12000 


Number of Vessels lost.......... Se uriins entras ears anaes Petites One 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ... ........... ne $5,500 
Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost.......- CRs Decale Napet See ies aoe ee aed Eleven 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. 

DOM CWE oe oo so awk soe ee ces SB Lae lene eos eae eens $1,00 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 

S56., Por DD sa ede getd cee Yee ence ce eaten peu eeaumaw ss $2,00. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... .. none 
Total valuc.of Mackerel do. 2025.0... 055.5. peecetaye re ree none 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel. ..... $16 $12 $38 

iL 2 $ 


- Nol No2 Nos 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel... ..........$12 $8 $6. 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.............. 250 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DCB race sr eas le LR a cinla ted Seas ® oer $250 each vessel yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.............. .--- $1500. 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages............. $1,000 yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs........ .......-. Ee none 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Banks Grand Georges St Peters 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
American Shore Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken...... amass nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
The Fisheries have changed from shore fishing to deep sea & Bank 
fishing, The mackerel fishery bas changed from the hand line and hook 
to use of seines The Bay of St Lawrence fishery has decreased from 
300 vessels yearly to 40 last year Not one of the vessels that went to- 
the Bay of St Lawrence last year paid their expenses , 
HARVEY KNOWLTON JR 


Sworn aud subscribed to before me, this thirty first day of May 1877 - 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


| : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, $135 
No. 69. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composin ; 
| composing the firm of Sid. 
ney Friend & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
40 years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


No. a ee Sone Pitas Weusyo eererache.e waa Wack dna tani neee 13 
No. of Trips made.................. sixty per year—for all the veasela 
No. of Trips to Bay St Lawrence ............... (4) four (or whatever) 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .............. 1065 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inelad. 

ding Magdalene Islands .................... hatte eee nee eames pone 
Average value of Vessels each. .....,......cccccccscccccs 6000, each 


about $700, per trip, or $2800, per year 


Average value of Insurance....... ..........0..... #4500, each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., 
WADECH DOR INO iia: ais sence eos eye acevo weiss area --» S835, per month 


_ Average value of Commissions, &e¢ = 
3 per ct on gross stuck—to Skipper 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
-$12000, for Establishment & $4400, for labor making 
$16,400, inclusive 


BeMMIUOT OF VY CBRGISSIOSE wc. vies os ws; wots nav auie's ae Ree he vaca’ one 
pValue of Vessels lost, including outfits........... 00.22. cceceee 86000. 
MUERIO TOL GH ISUCIOSE a sie oo eevisla sls bo) 4 oeig aa ae ale pee ais 5e a eagle none 
Benin DOE Ore UIVOR OSE? 26 we stata esas Kawa tee ced woelaas en 13 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., per 

BWiwececrigs ase cawseeies.ss Deira aeteradiee a oie we-ecranisigeieie es Dae 75 cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 

BO MPO sc: wpe tc as veda xi ee apabesdehaes see yes creas 1. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shore.. none 
rin CRNIG UE NIACK OLE! OO insole oe cies ee eames esse enaes None 


‘Average valué of American Shore Mackerel 
3 $15, for ones, #12, for twos $8, for threes 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
$12. for ones; $8. for twos; $6. for threes 
| Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.-.....--. 32 
“Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
: #200, each vessel. 


| Amount paid to British fishermen for herring. ..--.---++-++++++> 6.500, 
_ Amount paid to British fishermen as wages ...-------++++++5>> r $150, 
‘Amount paid in British ports for repairs...-----.----s+e-5s500% 1.000, 


‘Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
: ; Gd Bank,Le Have, Bradlee, Orphan 
‘Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

: from Long Island to New F oundland. 


‘Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking. ..--++-++++++> not hing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken......--++- nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Ameriwan 


. fisheries ; . 
- The Halibut & Cod fisheries are entirely deep-sea fisheries within no 

Rational jurisdiction. The mackerel fishery has largely changed eon 
‘Hook & line fishing to seine fishing—the American shore mackere 


3136 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


bringing one third more in price than the Bay-mackerel on account of 
quality. 

The Bay of St Lawrence fishery for mackerel has gradually deterio- 
rated intill we cannot send vessels there at any profit whatever. Those 
vessels we have sent the past seven years have not paid their expenses 
We consider the Bay Fishery a failure and worthless to American fisher- 


men. : 
SIDNEY FRIEND 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Publie 
No. 70. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of David 
Low and Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
twenty five years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 


Norof Vessels omployedis: (cs iicaevaeeaee eases eee ...-- fourteen 

No. of Trips made:.< «2 5.1... Sesieuin eagteniee Six trips yearly each vessel 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 

No. of Trips to Bay of St. Lawrence........ 5 5 2 1 0 


1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Law- 
PONCE Uke eS aa celde cone ee nase s es eee ee 1250 750 440 200 bls 0 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands 
not one tenth 
Average value of Vessels each.............-. Six thousand dollars each 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e 
Seventeen Hundred dollars value each vessel 
Average value of Insurance............- nine per cent vessel & outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Thirty dollars each 
Average value of Commissions, &c.........-...- Two hundred dollars 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Thirty five thousand dollars 
wamber of vessels: Jost. 5. 3c0:)1 st ies seee ae eae ee a ee ereaee i iags one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.......... five thousand dollars, 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
fifty cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e¢., 
POPAD DE ey seco ase aw gio wa au aioe wee eee ees two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..... none 
Total: valué:of Mackerel Gove oie id hates Gowen Six hundred dollars 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Sixteen, twelve, & eight 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ............. Eleven, Seven five 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two hundred fifty 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 


four thousand dollars yearly | 
-- 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Tw . 2 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages i ta a 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs. .five hundr 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
‘ Gri ank & G i 
Locations frequented by American vessels for oe ae ones 
Cape May to Bay of St Ls 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking amet F i‘ ” 7 maculae 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .......... nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conductiog American 

fisheries 

After first of July we used to send most of our vessels ten years 
ago—to Bay of St Lawrence—but of late years that fishing proveng of 
no value, our vessels looseing money. we have confined them entirely to 
our own shores and the ocean banks. we send no vessels in the Brittish 
waters for fish or mackerel and only enter them for bait and Supplies 
for which we pay cash. we consider the Brittish inshore fisheries a 


. 

AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3137 
{ 

| 

| 

| 


ed dollars yearly 


complete failure BENJAMIN LOW 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 


Notary Publie 
No. 71. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Leigh. 
ton & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past nine 
years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 80 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 
Me, Of Vessels CMPlOyed. 222-2... sos ses a ced esse sn sisieienienes Eighteen 
No. of Trips made.. Averaging about Eight Trips yearly fo each vessel 

: 3 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.-9 ting 14 Trips 4 Trips 1 Trip 1 Trip 


72 1873 1874 1875 1876 
_ No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.53.4 relat 909 134 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands 


Not more than 450 Bbls. (Four Handred & fifty) 
Average value of Vessels each....-.-- re eter eae ey 87,500.00 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Wc ; o 

. #1500.00 for Bay Trips or Bank 
- Trips each ; 
Average value of Insurance....-.-- 9°) per annum on Vessel & outiits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ Lime, V1Z., Wages per Tne 

&55.00 per month 

Average value of Commissions, XC..--- +--+. ses sorter rent ¢:300.00 

Average value of Whaves, Fish-houses, &e., for curing and packing, 


_ including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
a3u.000, yearly 


Nine 


Value of Fish lost ...-.. Chica ieee ener ror nie & 1000.00 each 
‘Number of Lives lost... .. ..- Ree sack a peeeese aise ad Late 

otal value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., per ews. 
.. Seventy five cts all kinds 


‘otal value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e, per 
Ms Me Pa errr Two Dollars 


3138 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores ....Not any | 
Total value of Mackerel do ..........-. $900.00 (nine Hundred Dollars) 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel . .$16.00 $12.00 & 8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel...-....-.-.-.12.00 8.00 & 6.00 | 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year . .from $200 to $300. | 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- | 


TUN CE Seaerery Wear gear e/adiaiclutne Senias oeeecr ee $400. per Vessel. yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring........ ++ $6600.00 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages...-...... about $200. yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs............ about $500 yearly 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Georges, Grand Banks also Western Bank 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Capes of Virginia to Bay of Chaleur 
Autual value of Fish in the water, before taking 
Worth nothing in the water, value io the labor and capital 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken....the same as fish 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries We were once largely engaged in Mackerel fishery in Bay of St 
Lawrence but this is now unprofitable owing to poor quality & decrease - 
in quantity of the Mack’l of late years All vessels sent there of late 
years returning largely in debt. Our vessels now being employed on 
the banks for fish and on our shores for mack’l using seines entirely in- 
stead of Hooks tor Mackl—and trawls mostly for fish 
ANDREW LEIGHTON 
WALTER M.FALT { uxcnt0N & CU. 
GEORGE A. UPTON 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of June 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 
NO. 02. 


This is to certify that the undersigned, composing the firm of late 
Dodd & Tarr now James G Tarr & Bro have been engaged in the fish- 
ing business for the past twenty five years, at Gloucester Mass and that 
since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels 
have been employed as follows: 


NO, OF, V.CaBelR CM PlOVEd ora arinc ay Ute ates eee ce tee aerate Twelve 
No.-of Trips: made <q. ..26.264e5< ..--Six trips yearly, to each Vessel, 72 
1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 4 2 4 3 0 3 total 16 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence — 
1871 1872 1873 =: 1874 1875 1876 
LST O*— “SSS. V672"* -JIge™ 0 190 °* Total 4.161. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands ......... about one-tenth, (Most caught off shore) 
Average value of Vesselseach .... ...... Ses O vaone five Thousand Dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c...$2,500 per year for each Vessel 
ANCFARE-VAIUG: OF TNSUTANGE50 36 tnsicuc cee ee sande sarees $3,500 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Capt $75 Crew $35 per Month 
Average value of Commissions, &¢..-......... 200 yearly each Vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
(331,000) Thirty one thousand Dollars .yearly. 


- 
i , 


' 
: Bee “Lg 
"in Se 


‘Tring and pay them their price 


has been in effect, our vessels have 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 53139 
Number of Vessels lost 


Value of Vessels lost, including outtits...... ess oe Sa pe 500 
Value of Fish lost ...-... ote Hers ot cele ae ene piae back OD 
Munem ol Lives lost <c8.0r no Aen ter ee thirty one 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per owt. 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, iiuen bere 

MMI Sere ery on ined wide a Laie chee Ue SES bared Hoe & two Dollars 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
None taken 


meas Waluc Ol. Mackorel-G0.5 <5.ccaos. Se os ose £5 oes Sacenkek. ck #1300 

‘ Nol 2 3 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel .... #16, 12, 8 

: Nol 2 3 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel .............. Sr ae 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year. 8215 for past 6 years 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and 


various supplies... .......... $5,000 yearly total in six years $30,000 
Amount paid to British fishemen 

for herring........ CSc an $4,100 yearly sc 1 eh 824,600 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages................ hired none 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs............... o 2000 GLTSO 
Locations frequented by American 

vessels for Fish....... Gd Bank Georges Browns Lebave Bradelle &e 
Locations frequented by American 

vessels for Mackerel............ from Sandy Hook to Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, be- 

FORGING oie oie iela cece « Nothing. as raw material valueless 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water 

ROIOPO TAK ON son. 12 lacs cea ss sasiee 66 of 86 4 “ 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries During the last four years Mackerel in the Bay of St Lawrence 
have been comparatively scarce. Seineshave gradually been introdaced 
until at present time hook fishing is nearly obsolete. Seine fishing ta 
the Bay of St Lawrence & Chaleur is not practical and has proved a 
thorough failire and the business has been abandoned The Mackerel 
fishery is confined to the American coast The Bay Codtishery bas been 
given up for years not a dozen trips has been made from this port within 
six years We depend upon the deep sea Banks entirely for Halibut & 
Codfish and employ the British shore boats and fishermen in taking Her 


DAVID TARR 
JAMES G. TARR 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31st day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 


Notary Public 

No. 73. ‘ 
4 This is is to certify, that the undersigned, composing the firm of Smith 
-& Golt have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 10 years, 


at Gloucester Mass. and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
h been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed ....------++-2 000 00t: apa sede see 


1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 


3140 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence ...... 4 5 5 4 3 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. 

Wa wrene era. eda course eared eahrecrne 1000 1000 750 600 300 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

Magdalene Islands ..... most caught around the Magdalene Islands. 
Average value of Vessels each .......---- «-- EOE A es CHG PR $7000 
Average value of Oatfits, Salt, Bait, &¢...--.-...2..0.s22.---2 $3000 
Average value of Insurance..-........-...-- 9° on vessels and outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo....$35 
Average value of Commissions, &c........... Csiemee $200 each vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 

packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors aud 


labor on shore. ....- peo ceueeraes savers Wig asc pete es eee en sie eerie $35,000 
Number of Vessels lost .....-...-.- a inigesy erate aioe race esta tebe. a eae ee cere a 1 
Value of Vessels lost, incliding outhts..2. 154.2... ..--....0-<- $ 10.000 
Value of Fish lost : 

Naim ber or ives 10st. occ <a s ose a tae rece SE Ee EE EE 10 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 

OC. OD OW saa Can tiene a bee me et eu Man Saeco tee ae > 50¢ 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before caring, splitting, salt- 

WG OWE. MEY BU se. a25 3 eet ek as sake ee cheers ee ae eo $1.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..... none 
otal valneGr Mackerel GO c5ss00 at sons Cees eats ee eae none 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel..... .-- 816 $12 $8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ..........-........ $11 $8 $6 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..... aoe a ciate $250 
Average amount paid in British ports for Bait, ice, and 

MATIONS SUPDNOCS) < .5%ccccactek done as ose Shvaune $200 each vessel 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring............ $400 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages...........--... $200 year 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs ......-.. +065 -s-ce0 sees nove 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Banks, La Have, Georges 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Bay St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken-........-.- nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
The fisheries have changed from hook and line fishing to trawl fishing, 
aud from line fishing to seining for Mackerel We have throughly tested 
the St. Lawrence fishery, and find it is a failare, our vessels not paying 
their expenses, We shall send no vessels there this year. Our codfish- 
Ing Is pursued outside of the jurisdiction of any nation, on the ocean 


banks, 
ADDISON GOLT Jr. SYLVANUS SMITH 
SMITH & GOLT 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 3lst day of May 1877 
DAVID W. LOW 
(Seal.) Notary Public 

No. 74. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Clark 


& Somes have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Twenty | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. S141 


years, at Gloucester Mass., and that since the W; 


ishington Treaty, « 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been e ‘ acer 


inployed as follows: 


SEES CU POV OC es. Sing acon iciald nse sie a cies ca ie wie veeia'a a's > eee Eleven 
imomro. Of Trips made... 2... ...5....% (90 yearly) Five each vessel yearly 


: 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay of St. Lawrence........ ew aa 0. ‘ : 


1872 1873 1874 1875 


{ 

| 

| No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 812. 680 300 0 60 

_ No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclading 

Magdalene Islands..... .--None of any consequence; not one tenth 

| Average value of Vessels each......... oseeeee-. Six thousand Dollars 

| Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........... cc. cece eeee 82,500 

|» Average value of Insurance................ 9 pr ct on Vessel & outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo... . 840 
Average value of Commissions, &c..... he ck Sagan 250 each ‘vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor ou shore .830,000 

Number of Vessels lost 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

' Value of Fish lost 


Number of Lives lost : 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
OWb os. eee: Bie elas esre hick USa etre oes Moe iene atalds tele ala bob aS wto 50 ets 
pote value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
ete ce hie BUDetne ee as Baeae taiwan ba Dae ee seeds &150 
'» Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
tee Lotal value of Mackerel do.............. s(ephanas 4 aGieaaceeeee® £360 


Nol No2? No3 
| Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.. $16 $12 88 
Nol No2No3 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel ...........- $11 $7 8685 

| Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year...-.-.. --- 8250 

- Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

DUOR tower ae ao sake me cps s Aes feet tine oe es eca $3000 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring...-.....--- 82500 + 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.....--------+++++- — 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs...... +--+. +--+ e555 —_— 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Banks Georges Westeru Bks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Gulf St Lawrence 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking...-.-- Eee : Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken....----. . Nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting A gehen fish. 
-eries We have formerly sent vessels to the Bay of St Lawrence ie 
one third to 4 of our fleet, but the constant reduction in aanae = 
quality of the mackerel has rendered that fishery not ouly unpro ta a7 
“put absolutely ruinous to continue in it. Our shore mackerel ae worth 
“more money are more readily taken are In better condition. or ee 
tem of seining cannot be applied in the Bay ot St Lawrence be . be - 
“water the rocky bottom breaks the seine, and in deep water the pa. s 
fill the seine and sink carrying the Mackerel with them. Our yar. 
enter British Waters only to purchase supplies Ice Bait &c for w 


_ We pay cash JOHN E SOMES_ 
a GEORGE CLARK Jr 


————SSE 


3142 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSiON. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 26th day of July 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Publie | 
No. 75. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of J F 
Munson & Company have been engaged in the fishing business for the 
past twenty-five years, at Gloucester Mass and that since the Washing- 
ton Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed 
as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed ........---+ seeeee sence eee e oe (Ten) (10) 

No. Of Erips Made. s<s.o5 < xis oss Ree kien Six trips yearly each vessel 
1872 1873 1874 1875 .1876 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... 3 2 2 1 0 


; 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay 


Sti DAWPONCGn assc.c.en crease teens 500 450 510 120 0 
No. of Barrelsof Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

Macdalene: Islapae .. aca wi isics selene eciew es all caught at Magdalens 
Average value‘of Vessels each 2. ....654 cise cee cee ccs Seuxas $5,000 


Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c. 
$1,000 for Bay trip $600 for Georges Banks 


Average value of Insurance ...-........ -9 per ct on Vessel & Outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo....$35 
Average value of Commissions, &¢ ...............-00- 400 each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .26,000 
Number of Vessels lost ...... ee ee fee ote ee 


Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ..........-.--00 -ecces $15,000 
Value of Fish lost 
Nuniber-of Lives lost: $: 5s 2k coe eee een e eae > 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt.75 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 


DDbsea ke eterno areca eet I Schott ees Manan, ae ere nels 200 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .nothing 
wotal value of Mackerel d0. 5.3363 oo0e oe en ary ceeaae eae es ae 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.......... 16, 12, 8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ..............-----0- ll Fa 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year....--...... $250 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

DIOR Due MS asses erate Sars eure aid date gate oie ic are ete $2000 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring. .6000 yearly last five years 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.........--..2.0025022—— 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs........ ...--.2.2++---- — 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of fish in the water, before taking... ..........-- nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken............nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
Trawls have taken the place of hand-lines for fish and Seines are 
mostly used for Mackerel. Shore off the coast of the U States mackerel- 
ling is more profitable than any other shorter trips & better Mackerel 
The Vessels we have sent to the Bay of St Lawrence have not paid 
their expenses We should have difficulty in shipping a crew for the 
Bay We consider that fishery an entire failure The quality of the 


_— 


oe ae 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3143 


Mackerell and the great expense of the Bay trips makes it impossible 


to do any fishing there. None of our vessels use the inshore fisheries 
of the Dominion 


JOHN F. WONSON 
| ROGEE G. WONSON 


| Ton F, WONSON & CO 


ROGER, W, WONSON 

FRANKLIN A. WONSON. 
Sworn and subscribe:i to before me, this 31st day of May 1877 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


| | No. 76. 


| STATEMENT OF A. G. PROCTER, OF PROCTER, TRASK & CO. 
| ere FISH DEALERS, GLOUCESTER MASSACHU. 
i - ; 


it! In the way of information touching the value of Fish taken in Eog- 
lish waters, I would state that our firm is extensively engaged in the 
| purchase of Herrings and Mackerel along the shores of the Gulf of St. 
_ Lawrence, Magdalen Islands and New Foundland. That we have pyr- 
chased of the British fishermen along these shores, during the past 
Eighteen months, about Twenty thousand (20.000) barrels of Herrings : 
_| That we pay for the Herrings—delivered to our vessels at the Magdalen 
Islands by the British fishermen—Six (6) cents per barrel. These Her- 
_| rings are caught in their own seines, and delivered from their own 
boats; and six (6) cents per barrel is the regular price charged for for 
the fish so delivered during the season. That for the Herrings caught 
on the upper shores and along Anticosti Island we pay. on an average 
Ten (10) cents per barrel. One cargo received by us during the past 
month, consisting of Eighteen hundred (1800) barrels, cost in gold One 
hundred eighty two ($182) Dollars. This was the actual cost of the 
_ Herrings delivered, fresh, on the deck of our vessel, and includes the 
use of the seines, nets and boats of the English fishermen and their 
_. labor in securing and delivering. That the average cost of the New 
_ Foundland Herring taken at Fortune Bay, Boone Bay and Bay of 
Islands delivered to our vessels, fresh—is Fifty (50) cents per barrel. 
This class of Herrings are all caught in nets, which method increases 
the cost. The nets used cost about Twelve (12) Dollars each, and they 
_ will average to wear only about two seasons; the price mentioned ia- 
eludes all wear and tear of nets and gear, use of boats and labor tn de- 
 livering. Sonie of these Herrings are brought from thirty to forty 
miles in boats to be delivered to our vessels. In all the Herring fish. 
' eries, as far as our actual experience goes, in the British waters, my 
_ judgment is, that the cost to us of the product as delivered to our reasels 
is not more than equal to the value of the labor actually expended - 
securing and delivering them, including the cost and weas and tear o 
' the material used. a 
For Mackerel caught in British waters, along the shores mention ee 
_ we pay from Three (3) to Four (4) Dollars per barrel. This ‘4 gh: : 
| rel delivered ready for packing trom their boats, and fergie the use 
of expensive gear, cost of splitting and labor, and cost of delivering. 
es ents vn shore for the past four or five 
The abundance of Mackerel on our own e | Bike! 
years; their superior quality and low price bas made it more profita 
: : hore, than those caaght 
for us to purchase mackerel caught on our own shore, 


pony 


-_ a . OO EE 


3144 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


in English waters; even at the low price at which the English fish were 
offered. We buy and dispose of $350,000. worth of fish yearly. 
A G PROCTER i] 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


ESSEX Ss. GLOUCESTER July 28th 1877 
Then personally appeared the above named Addison G. Procter and 
made oath that all the foregoing statements by him subscribed are true 
to the best of his knowledge and belief. Before me ; 
(Seal.) DAVID W.LOW, 
Notary Publie 
No. 77. 


I Aaron Smith Master of the schooner Cora E Smith I was born in 
North Haven. Maine do depose & say That I started from Gloucester 
on the 25th of April 1877 for a Mackerel voyage off Block Island was 
absent one Month and took 200 Barrels Mackerel with seine. all No3 
and worth Six Dollars per Bbl On the 8th of June 1877 started ona 
trip for shore Mackerel and took 160 Bbls at round Pond State of Maine 
These Mackerel were taken within 10 rods of the shore Most of these 
Mackerel were No 2 and brought 12 dollars per Bbl on an average. I 
have been 20 years engaged in fishing for Mackerel have been eleven 
seasons in the Bay of St Lawrence never done so well there as on our 
own shores. I have assisted in taking over 3500 Barrels of Mackerel in 
the Gulf of St Lawrence and of that amount not 200 Barrels were taken 
within 3 miles of the shore and so far as I know the same proportion 
will hold in the catch of other American Vessels. Ten years ago when 
we depended on the Hook fishing the Gulf of St Lawrence Mackerel 
fishery could be pursued to advantage but since the introduction of 
seines it cannot be pursued profitably 

AARON SMITH 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 
CouNTY OF ESSEX GLOUCESTER Aung. 13th 1877. 
Then personally appeared the above named Aaron Smith and made 
oath that the above statement by him subscribed is true. Before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Publie 


SS. 


Also appeared Jerome B. Thomas one of the Crew of Schooner Cora 
E. Smith who on oath, deposes and says that the above statement by 
Aaron Smith Master is true. he also deposes and says that he was 
Master of Sch. David Brown Jr. in 1869 & 1870 and prosecuted the 
Mackerel Fishery in the Bay of St. Lawrence that I did so poorly that 
I left fishing as an occupation for several years and consider that Mack- 
erel Fishing with Seines on American Shores more profitable than the 
Bay fishing. My residence is North Haven in State of Maine. 

JEROME B THOMAS 
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ve 
COUNTY OF EssEx ‘Rey GLOUCESTER Aug 13. 1877 

Then personally appeared the above named Jerome B. Thomas and 
made oath that the above statement by him subscribed is true. Before 
me 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3145 


No. 78. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of EB 
Burrill & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 14 
| years, at Newburyport Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
| *ealled, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


eine Cfo cenels eM ployed Jo) en iii scenrn 6 hone va icwaee aaceeta aie 
No. of Trips made ; RS: 
| Averaging from four to Six Trips yearly to Bay and home Fishing 
1872. 1873. 1874. 1873. 1876 
| _No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence .... 4. 4. \. 3. none, 
| 1812. 1873. 1874. 1875. 1876 

| No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay 
| Piss MI WRONOCO or isis os a pardon iene ed 1000 =. 960 758. 555. none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, inclading 

Magdalene Islands 

560 Bbls. or about that, including Magdalene Islands 


j) Average value of Vessels each.............. Sai niesseae sig suena aveis 7000 

| Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........For Bay trip say 10008 

| Average value of Insurance.......... 9 pr ct on schooners and outfits, 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo ; 

say Per Mo 358. 

mverace value of Commissions, WG: ..5 s.ec< eccs.kst, ovseceeeesee 2508 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor ou shore 


say 120008 
_ Numbers of Vessels lost .......-... fans serra eas one. (Say 120008) 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits................. 2... 8ay 75 
BPR LEOIOL MUSE 186 saci vides cits seam ise estore ss -+20.--8ay 30008 
DREW DOR OF LAVOR OSG s=2ac0s6 fos ic seag gees oat ass Si edea seven bare none 
| Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
ewt : 
|| Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
SN OE 52d sit fon op sin sais ahd laa oie ia ma sie bw Aein. tas Two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores ..not any 
Total value of Mackerel do...........%1120. including Magdalene Isls 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.....--. 163 128 58 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel..-.....----+--+-+++ 128 58 68. 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ; 
trom 1408 to 2508 
_ Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap: 

plies Sg eioo sata pig SiesShes eG ular s a-eie mean ial eee. ee. Say 4088 yearly. 
_ Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
| Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
| Anmiount paid in British ports for repairs ae 
ie according to damages by gales. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
' Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
| 2 ; from Capes of Virginia to Bay ¢ halear 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before worth nothing in the water 
gue aking : . Value beiug in the Labor 
. Actual valueof Mackerel inthe water, be- | x Capital. 


\ 
f conducting American fish- 


| __ fore taken ’ 
_ Facts as to changes in location and mode 0 


eries . 
Oar vessels. have always been in the Mackerel fishery, and were 


e 


3146 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


formerly employed in the Bay of St Lawrence, but for the last few 
years, owing to the small catch, and poor quality of the Fish, have been 
obliged to fish upon the American shore, using seines. We did send 
for two years seines in the Bay of St Lawrence, but they were never 
used there. and were put on shore and kept until the vessels returned 
home in the Fall. making to us, an expense, for which we had no equiv- 
alent. 
E. BURRILL. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this eighteenth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) E. F. BARTLETT 
Notary Publie 


No: 79. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of I. H 
Boardman and T. H Boardman & Co. have been engaged in the fishing 
business for the past forty years, at Newburyport, Mass—and that since 
the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have 
been employed as follows: 


INO OF V GSO Cl pIOVER 2.228). cueewee reser eneax te average 5 yearly 

Wo; Of Trips. made. so. 2022 Fee averaging 5 to each vessel yearly 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.......... 12 9 5 —2—2 


1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 3100 1756 1240 470 235 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


’ Magdalene: Islands: 2205 éso.acecetienay asec. not exceeding 400 Bbls 
Average value of Vessels GAGD ss c0c Son ea enc vele eee cee seo $8500 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &.............. Movbeey ote $1200. 
Average valueof Insurance .......... 200 ceece- 9 pr ct for vessel, yearly 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.... $40. 
Average value: of Commissions, G65 <cedecsici  csswes arsed see $300 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors, and labor on shore 
say $14,000 yearly 


Number of Vessels 10s6...<. 2 oes a eee eo ee None 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits .........--..--.--.--- Nothing 
Walue: of Wish 10st. 225s. 0s sods dace vise eee sere the oS None 
Namber of Dives lost... cdot decease ee eas cee ees two 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
ONG se raid toes ne errata we alee Lease Sai tan ee eee eoee Seventy-five cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 
per bbl... Fis S Gaaiatau eee eae es Oe ores one dollar & fifty cents 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.... None 
Fotalivalne-of Mackerel dovcssscce dente ee ascen eee eee ees $600. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel...-.. $16 $12 $8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel............-.- $11. $6. $5. 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
from $150 to $300 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
about $350 pr vessel yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring......-- --- $3000 yearly 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.........----+ $900. yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs......... $400 vearly average 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish Georges, Grand Banks 
Western Banks Labrador & Newfoundland Coasts 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3147 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

545 from Cape Henry to Bay Chaleur. 
Actual value of Fish in the water before taking. .... nothing whatever 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken. ..... same value 


Many years ago, we were largely interested in the Mackerel Fisheries 
owning quite a fleet of vessels and which were largely employed in the 
Bay of St Lawrence fisheries: of late years owing to the seareity of Fish 
in those waters, & the poorer quality of them, we have gradually aban- 
doned the Fishing grounds there, and have employed our vessels on our 
own Shores in Hook Fishing. but mostly with Seines, at the present 
season we shall not send a single vessel to the Bay of St Lawrence for 
the catching of Mackerel, for our vessels in those waters have not, of 
late, paid their expenses, the two vessels employed by us the past sea- 
son in the Bay of St. Lawrence, with large crews and employed during 
the whole season, landing only 165 & 70 Bbls. respectively. 

ISAAC H BOARDMAN for 
T. H BOARDMAN & CO. 
worn and subscribed to before me, this twenty ninth day of May 

77 : 

[Seal.] BE. F. BARTLETT, 
Notary Public 


As to the liberty conceded by the “ Treaty of Washington” to the 
American Fishermen, to take Fish within three miles of the shores of 
the Provinces, it is, practically, of little value, inasmuch as most of their 
Mackerel are taken by our Fishermen outside of that line, and in our opin- 
ion, the liberty so granted, is much more than overbalanced by allowing 
the Provinces to import Fish of all descriptions into the markets of the 
United States, free of duties, thus competing successfully with our own 
Fishermen, together with the right to fish on our shores for Mackerel, 
(in which occupation they now are employed in seining on our Soathern 
Coast,) together with all other kinds of Fish including Bait, on which 
the Province Fishermen in a great measure depend for their supply 
from the United States.—In my opinion, (and I speak now from an ex- 
perience of more than forty years,) and that of nany American Fisher- 
men and owners of Fishing vessels with whom I have conversed, the 
Provinces have by far, in a pecuniary point of view, an overwhelming 
advantage already by the terms of the Treaty. In fact, the concession 
- made to our Fishermen is of little pecuniary value, the only real benefit 

is, the avoiding of conflicts between the American Fishermen and the 
armed Cruisers of the Provinces, by the former fishing on or near an 
imaginary line, and by the seizure and condemnation of American ves- 
sels in some instances, solely by the preponderance in numbers of. evi- 
dence by the larger crews of the cruisers, which have heretofore been 
fitted out and maintained at a large expence to the Provincial or British 
-Governments, and thus creating trouble a hostile feeling between 

i i he people of both pations.— 
the contending parties, and the peo} ar BOARDMAN 


Newburyport Mass. May. 1877. 
No. 80. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Ire- 
~ land & Trefethen have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 


3148 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Twenty three years, at Newburyport and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, bas been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 


No..of Vessels-eniployed .....s 2.8 09 Bae oes ee os eee Three 
No.of Trips-made..) a<s..400.siscaeecte aes .-. Six yearly to each vessel 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... tha ee ae oe ae 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. 1876 1875 1874 1873 1872 
DAWLONCE iA ae cee ene ee anne ==! 9000 240 -360=—-250 265 
No. of Barrels of Mackerell caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene. Islands... 656 02 52s kee <5 Caught all off Magdelens 
Average valde of Vessels ench’... «cave eu nee eee 3000 
Average value of Outtits, Salt, Bait, &c........ 1000 Dollars for 6 mos 
Average value of Insurance.............. 9 per ct on Vessel & Outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ pipe viz., Wages per 
Ti eee Re ae, Sater erse noire wane Fare Peres ere mes pene 30 Dollars 
Average value of Commissions, &c.......-........-.--.$200 each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-house, &e., for curing and pack- 
ing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on 


SINCE cy Stak esa ara Sane orate au a cea rae nc a cea ete ate atoms Sire $5000 
Nimber or Vv oases: loeb. ic vc ect oor ee ee ere one 
Value.of. Vessels lost, inclading outtits.. 2nc.04225 ssa scan wee $3000 


Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewe. 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
bbl. 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 


Dotal valac-or Mackerel dq... 12e082 ose oe ew meres wows None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel...... $16 $12 $8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel........... fuscseie. $8. O6 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year......$125, 6 Mos 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish. - Georges & Lahave 
Locations frequented by American vessels 


fOr - MaACKOrel 2.322% 22244 suse pecs eee Cape May to Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ........-.... Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......-.. Nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

We have had vessels in the Bay of St Lawrence for past 12 years. 
We have now changed our business to Bank fisheries for Cod & Had- 
dock as the Bay of St Lawrence has proved a failure our vessels not 
paying us any profit. One of our firm has personally been in this Bay 
fishery aud in one of our vessels. The inshore fisheries of the Dominion 
is entirely useless to us. 

GEORGE W TREFETHEN 
Jor the firm 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this eighteenth day of May 1877 


[Seal. | Ek. F. BARTLETT 
No otary Public 


+ 9 Sn 


= Pa 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3149 
No. 81. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of R. 
Bayley & Son have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Forty years, at Newburyport and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


No. of Vessels employed.............Two (2) Mackerel One Labrador 
No of Trips made........... Da eiactis ees Four 8 Two “ 
No of trips to. Bay St, Lawrenee a5. cccc ccc es-ciccccddes cece ase Four 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence..... S-ven hundred 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclad- 
ing Magdalene Islands.......... Quantity unknown, very few if any 
Average value of vessels each.......... *....Thirty-five hundred dolls 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e....Thirty-two hundred dolls. 
Average value of Insurance, 
Four and one quarter pr. cent a year for six months. 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo., 
Capt 875. Crew 828 Each 
Average value of Commissions, &e. 
Two hund & fifty dolls ea. vessel ea. year 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore : 
Ten thousand dolls. 


IN RBOD iV CBB LONE ict-2, ate tora acc Vana sianays ig PRE vide & wa olelanlsion One 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits........... Ten thousand dolls 
Value of Fish lost ......... is SA Ta eh kes ig haere taal as Eight thousand dolls. 
INDINDER OF LIVER OSG seis co oes te pas mies Serena he sane tees . None 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
No fish, cannot estimate Mack. 
Total value of Mackerel do. és % ss 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Eleven & a quarer dolls pr. bbt. 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.Seven & one half dolls. pr. bbl. 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two hundred & fifty dolls. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup 
CN TS RE RE A PG ORO IEMA Mae Rey ore meee Yo Two hundred dolls 


- Amount paid-to British fishermen for Herrivug.....Two thousand dolls 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages. . Fourteen Hundred dolls. 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs...-Two hundred & fifty dolls 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Gulf & Bay of St Lawrence and Labrador Coast 
Locations frequented by American vessels for mackerel. 
Cape Henry to Eastport Me. 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking Sree ee hor Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken...-.----- Nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries j : ; an i 
We have employed our vessels in the Shore, Bay of St Lawrence ane 

Labrador fisheries during the past ten years and the eae BS 

proved so unremunerative and hazardous that we have abandon t. 


3150 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


The Labrador fishery we consider very uncertain business and the risk 
very great more especially when the vessels are compeled to stay late 
in the fall, as is the case most of the time in latter years, in order to 
fill up if possible with herring, which have to be procured of the resi- 


dent fishermen 
R. BAYLEY & SON 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty third day of May 


1877 
J. T. BROWN 
(Seal.) Notary Public. 
No. 82. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Charles 
O. Currier have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Nine 
years, at Newburyport, Mass. and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


No.of Vessels employed: sic sas! wok ees access Wise ceceeey se uue aes Six 
No. of Trips made 
No.of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence....-. Sa eth eee wee Semi eer eee 4% 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.............-.- 8000 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not 
including’ Magdalen Islands: :..:.... cevsecewecs sas cays - Not Known 
Average value of Vessels each.............-2... IO oe $4000 
Average value of outfits; Salt, Bait, Qe... oc. os. vec acases $1500 
Average valueof Insurances ic 2. os eee he cnt eee eee $4000 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
$35 pr month 

Average value of Commissions, &c........... $250 pr year each Vessell 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 

packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor 

ORO SNORE: Cs ccc ete 5 ee ee ree ee aca ae $8000 
Number of Vesséls lost 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt. 
Total value of Mackerel takep, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 


DNS ee cteeen do lace ooceca's cen ees ee ee ee -.--.$1,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores .....-.- 0 
Total: Valuc ot Mackerel lo;2-: eo cu ate ve he eee See 0 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
N°1 $17.00 N°22$1150 Ne 2 $8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
N°: 1. $11.00 N° 2 $7.00 N° 3 $5.50 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year...........- $200 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
PIER oo aiared bays) oc tacnie oe vin Aaae see aan ee _... $75 pr vessell 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs... ... $30.00 pr year pr vessell 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape May to Gd Menan & Bay St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken 


= 


: 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3151 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

On account of the uncertainty of the Bay fishing, most of the New- 
baryport Vessels gave up that fishing about twelve years ago, and en- 
gaged in the coast fishing, using Seines instead of hook and lines, doing 
a fair business, while those who continued the Bay Mackerelling, have 
| made a losing business, and will mostly give up, and enter the Shore 
tishing 

CHAS. O. CURRIER 


ane and subscribed to before me, this twenty-first day of May 

i ) 
(Seal.) E. F. BARTLETT 

Notary Public 


No. 83. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Union 
Wharf Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Thirty 
years, at Provincetown Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


| No. of Vessels employed......... Sie ies ences be ee ae ea Seventeen 
| Gs OF CE TIDR PENANG <5 atest iaealsa ase 252 balieales B dilew erect Sixty-Eight 
an0;.00 2Tips:t0 Bay St. Lawrence :..c. cos seasc sos cae ccs Six since 1871 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
Twelve huaodred bbls 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inelud- 


Iie MUPHAIONOARIANOR: cai os oth rans r a Ras wie ae Ka se aes None 
Average value of Vessels each..........-...-. Five Thovsand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........ One thousand dollars 
Average value of Insurance..... -.-..-. Sosanee Four thousand dollars 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Thirty dollars 
/} Average value of Commissions, &c........- Four % to Caps of Vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Twenty five thousand dolls. 


Number of Vessels lost..-......-.---- ieee AS eee, at dot tere One 

- Value of vessels lost, including outfits......-.--. Five thousand dollars 
Bepalue Of BISh ORL. <6 <6 os.ods ae new as pas £68 oe ees ne eee Noue 
Sn DOE OT IVES LORE... 5. Sakic cee wee eae a ee ee eet aes eines None 


- Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, af per owes 
: 7 ne dollar 


__ Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 
: Ta Be a ne ee OL Saeco aiale eb sire apa ieiawiars Two dollars 


Total value of Mackerel do .....--.-----+---+s2-e-c08t8? beers None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.......- Ten dollars 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel..-.-..----- Eight dollars pr bbl 
_ Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 

Two hundred twenty five dollars 


_ Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Fifty dollars 


_ Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.-.--- ----- Pere one 
» Amount paid to British fishermen as Wages... .---) --2++ -5--5 - sone 


_. Amount paid in British ports for repairs ...----++ One hundred dollars 


$152 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Georgies. Block Island. Eastern Shore 


Actual value of Mackerel inthe water, before taken.........-. Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries Within the last three years we have had but two vessels en- 
gaged in Fishing in British Waters and they for Mackerel alone. The 
Mackerel fishing being done on the Coast of the United States to and 
along the Eastern Coast of Maine and on Georges Bank—not resorting 
to British Waters at all. The Gulf of St Lawrence Fishery is so un- 
profitable that we consider it a failare 


E M DYER ) 

B O GROSS by ee Bi 

A. T. WILLIAMS. GEN 2 ai 

LUTHER NICKERSON § My 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Eleventh day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS. HILLIARD 

Notary Public 
No. 34, 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Central 
Wharf Co formerly R. E. & A. Nickerson & Co. & E. S. Smith & Co 
have been engaged in the fishing business for the past twenty years, at 
Provincetown, Mass. and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


No. of vessels employed 
Six to twelve (viz some years 6, other years up to twelve 


NOsOb ETIPS MAGE 2c..c Foo 52, fa eee « five to seven yearly to each Vessel 
No. OL Erips:to: Bay Sb. lawrenes 4.20 crs cues oe cs none since 1873 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. .... none since 1873 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands any since 1873, but few inside of 3 miles ever 
1873 150 Bbls 


Average value of Vessels each.....-.....-. Forty five hundred dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c.........- 25008 to each Vessel 
AVePASe Value Gl INSUTANCE vec sons oa ea eae oe eae mater ... $250 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Captain 65.8 Crew 28.8 
Average: value of Commissions, 060: .<.. <4..<.2 5.5555 2008 each Vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .$2000. 


Npaiberot: Vessels ldstcr co vce ee Se ten tae one in 1873 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits....-........-. Pe ste aten, ai $7500. 
Wal@e-OL Ish osteo. oe cr reek secieuiaee we cece k wee oe eee $800. 
Womber of Eves lost-...65 5.5 fo toeeaut cote Rctate the rates none 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per ewt 
7” one dollar on Codfish 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 


POR ODL nel esse ies asin Ach. cats seal we snes eae $2.50 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .... none 
Total value of Mackerel do ....... $10. delivered at Provincetown 1873 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
No. 1s $16. No 2 $12. No. 3 $8. 


No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 


® ing Magdalene Islands......-------+-+++rercrereeersstee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3153 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
No 1. $12. No 2. $8. No 3. 86. (our average in 1872. $10.20 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
ae ae #225 at our place 
puerege amount paid in British ports for, bait, ice, aud various sup- 
plies 
$250 each Vessel including wages paid their—/tot: 9 Vesse 
Bibs coche g wages p (total for 9 Vessels 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ..... ............. none 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages .,.......... 100,% per-year 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
thus far small repairs, but liable to large in case of accident 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand, Western & Georges Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
from Cape May to Eastport, and Georges Banks 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking. ............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken ..... ..... Nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
We have sent no Vessels into the Bay of St. Laurence for Mackerel 
since 1873 and only two for Codfish, The facts are we do find the fish- 
ing business, (more especially for Mackerel in the Bay of St Lawrence) 
does not pay, that is our experience and is the only reason that we have 
allmost wholy discontinued sending our Vessels their, and than agaiu 


_ Mackerel takeing their are not as Valuable as those taken on our Ooast, 


the fishing grounds are far distant, bad weather sets in much earlier 
their than on our Coast, makeing it more hazardous, also as most of the 
Mackerel now are taken with Seines and we consider the Bay a very 
difficult place for Seining. We consider the fishing grounds in Bay of 
St. Laurence inside of three miles from Shore (especially for Mackerel) 
practically useless to us, and would not fit a Vessel under any consider- 
ation, looking to that locality for the success of their Voyage 
CENTRAL WHARF CO by A. NICKERSON 
ATKINS NICKERSON ) 
JAMES A. SMALL : aaeaoe 
ABNER B. RICH an Wharf Co. 
NATHAN YOUNG 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ninth day of June A. D. 1877 
(Seal.) B. F. HUTCHINSON 
Notary Public 


No. 85. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of H &. 
S Cook & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
twenty tive years, at Provincetown Mass and that since the Washing: 
ton Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have beén employed 
as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed. ..--.---- Miah cistls ec eeeeeeceeee cesses Big 
No. of Trips made.......--------- _. one trip yearly total Eight Trips 


One Trip in 1876 Cod Fishing (Failare) 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence ..-+.--+----- .. None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not —— 
..Non 


198 F 


3154 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
Average value of Vessels each.....-.-.-------- Five Thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c.......... $3,000 to each vessel 
Average value of Insurance ......---.+-+-++-+-se-. $248.00 each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 

° ; $40) Forty Dollar 
Average value of Commissions, &C....... ..-------- $50 Fifty - 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on 
SHOPO c5.ses eine ee cee wa ees ..-.$1.2.000 Twelve Thousand Dollars 
Nain ber Gf Vessels: lOnt. <2 is es.ccveen sos ovemwiucicsasme cneewceeiscs Two 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
$14,000 Fourteen Thousand Dollars 


Value ot Fish lost. .o.5:.02 ossaesee $12,000 Twelve Thousand Dollars 
ING: OF Dives 1086100055655 snsseact Sees trave sess toceceswouas Thirteen 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
NG orcas tiarece aia iate re i ag etal Pe eek ert 75 cts Seventy five cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 
yer Dbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
Total value of Mackerel do... 22.4 cc0cd scence tcnsce cece neeewcss None 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year........ $200, 00 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.........-.---- - Nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages........... $600,00 Yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
From Long Island to Newfoundland 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ............ Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 

For the last fifteen years we have sent two vessels only to the Bay of 
St Lawerene Cod Fishing and both voyages proved a failure. for the 
past eight or ten years the fishing in the Bay St Lawerence has been of 
no profit to us for neither Cod or Mackeral Fishing, and the year of 1876 
was nearly a Total failure. the Mackerel Fishing is carried on now by 
Seining and our vessels at Provincetown do better at fishing nearer 
home, our cod Fishermen do not fish in British limits, and it does not 
pay for our Mackerel Fishermen, 

H & S COOK & CO 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Ninth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS. HILLIARD 
Notary Publie 


No. 86. 


; This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of F. M. 
Freeman have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Five 


years, at Provincetown Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so | 


called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


WO-/of V eskels Oniployeds ou suv acuiienle canine Se ronces eerie Hight 
No. of DUEDB ANOMG ci evedsie'v av scores alla eens Sees aee ene Five 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence........ ten in five years cod fishing 


a = — 


1 
<== = so ose 


< 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3155 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence..... ..... none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not 
including Magdalene Islands. ..:............ccececccceccs none 
uverage value of Vessels cach... .6kccceaccsccccccccncccesc $4,000, 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..... $2000 Each vessell yearly 
everare VAIUG.0L INGNTANCG) «4 \.02s sis one oc dads¥eceans-aceece $150 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages permo. $35,00 
Average value of Commissions, &c..... erence 100 Each vessell yearly 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 
packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor 


PU GRMOTO ences Aeies ss Unie cee Kinjeeisee ceo > Seaway eas $15,000 
ener OF V OBSOIS: LORD. cc us casa ucts scot euch eiuse gece. none 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits...................... One 


Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. 


per cwt.....-- ree oe eee Ore err ee re eee - 1,00 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 
Pes AVI RNs niarale a sieis aiaca's 2 s)a te ieteiaia ase sin Ze mealies nein ee bias Pie $2,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. none 
metal value-of Mackerel d0:) i060 62s ois ew dates sess bacucees none 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel ;,, Ab Py 
’ b 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel.......... Nol No2 Nos 
12, $8, $6, 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.......- - $200, 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various 
BAG fee tae ree atnce w cic ais evacin' = win ale dtacicjocae ¥ viele ew eee Glee eia nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring......-...-..... nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages....-. aun wale er nothing 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs.....,-..---+-+.+-++ nothing 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
. - Western and Grand Bank Georges & Block Island 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
American Shores Bay St Laurence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking....-..----- nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken......--- nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Amer- 
can fisheries 
The Fisheries have changed from shore fishing to deep sea and Bank 
fishing a number of Vessels sent to Bay St Laurence from this port last 
ear fishing on Bank Bradley on Orphen and did not pay expenses 
e do not use the British wortes in side of thre miles for any fisherys 


whatever 
F M FREEMAN 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this ninth day of May 1877 Be- 
fore the subscriber a Notary Public for the County of Barnstable 
 (Seal.) B F HUTCHINSON 
Notary Public 


No. 87. 


_ This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Free- 


-taan and Hilliard have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 


3156 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Twenty years, at Provincetown and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as fol- 
lows: 


No. of Vessels employed 

No. of Trips made 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands 

Average value of Vessels each 

Average value of Oattits, Salt, Bait, &c. 

Average value of Insurance 

Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 

Average value of Commissions, &c. 

Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 

Number of Vessels lost 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per cwt. 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
bbl. 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 

Total value of Mackerel do. 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 

aires amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
plies 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
For eight years last past we have sent our fishing vessels, averaging 

seven in number to the Grand Banks. During this time have not sent 

a vessel to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for fishing purposes, from the fact 

that we have been unable to calculate upon any profit which might re- 

sult from such voyages. 


N.D. FREEMAN , 
J.D. HILLIARD FREEMAN & HILLIARD 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Eleventh day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS. HILLIARD 

Notary Public 

No. 88. | 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of 
Crocker & Atwood have been engaged in the fishing business for the | 
past fourteen years, at Provincetown and that since the Washington 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3157 


Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: ; 


No. a} wee a ee Mets avarcie-s sia teaieae ata te pcigeanats enacts Five 
RK Ol TIPS MANO. 6 ocr ce cea tick eas about five trips each ve , 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence..... eterna ; : - : — phe 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence ............. None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands........ eens i Te ee ee None 
Average value of Vessels each................ Five Thousand Dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c...$2500. on each vessel yearly 
Average value of Insurance................ $300. on * “ “ 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo...&30. 
each man per month 

Average value of Commissions, &¢............ $250. each vessel yearly 

Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. . 83500. 


yearly 
See DUT 4V- COBO ID LOK 65 aa a4 hss Civis cote s tnip ee ales oad ade io oehs Two 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits....................... $11,000. 
DV MEO OR ISR OSU xcs: acts sane 64 oats. Sw die ee bee sO voaisieGus a Sowa Ne $150. 
Number of Lives lost.......... Mesistna ca a gree go eas heiata ela eG lainateetiee None 
ann value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt. 
1,75. . 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
DDE erates aie seas cist oe aes Sao oR Ree ree te i tiacgto cleaeatlarenian $259, 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... None 
Total value of Mackerel do..... scilba aptoraratank alate ae wate saeelpcia ok sean ONO 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year .......--..-.-- 0 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

; Massachusetts Bay and Nantucket Shoals 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

American Shores north of Cape May. 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..........--- Valuless 
- Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.....-.-- _ do 
_Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


Our vessels being engaged in the Mackerel Seining business almost 
exclusively and as they could not Seine fish in British Waters we were 
obliged to fish on the American coast. tae 

: CROCKER & ATWOOD 


, Sworn and subscribed to before me, this ninth day of May 1877 
; ’ B F HUTCHINSON _ 
(Seal.) Notary Public 


No. 89. 


___ This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of E& 
EK. Cook, having been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
- Forty years, at Provincetown and that since the Washington Treaty, 
= called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


3158 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. of Vessels employed <2... 26 sccss0ecccs cctee Se eel ae Seven 
No. of Trips made : 1 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence. .....-....see.-- ee cccc ease 1876 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence........-.. 100 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not 

including Magdalene Islands......-.....---.-«-- Pe er none 
Average value of Vessels each.......2..2-2ccccsccccccse-e 85. OOF 
Average value of Oufits, Salt, Bait, &c..-....... 2220020 $800 trip— 
Average value of Insurance.......--.+. .-0-- $100 each vessel yearly 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per 

HO a pvalk bedi cae sete ce ieaeweaawes oie suuielee/c See eee os $35 
Average value of Commissions, pee AG cet termes ogee $200 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 
packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor 


OD SHOUG cteeei oc aa < ahaseotesewesa eon eecue as ase wep tues $6000— 
Namber Of Vessels 10st: <2: 224.45 bac dcawessy es sets < sie taeweee Three 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits... ..............2..-. $10.000 
Value Of Nish lost..c2.3sseccas icbsidlen wae ees seeeniee os oases $8000. 
Number: of Lives l0at.cc0 cs sssu cass enacs acaewce we be bews none. 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &ce. 

DOR CWhice as npnataen so steeews a Comoe aie metas ewe eR a ace 1.00 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 

Or Gey OL MN sare iar mses eae see meee ee eae - 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. none 
Total: value of Mackerel: Ow a.c% 305 seunewieget cies cacaeeee none 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
No. $16. no2.$12 no 3. $8 sold for 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel... sold for no 1. $11.no 2. $8.00 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ...-.... $200 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various 
supplies 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring................ none 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages .......-..+---++-- none 
Amount paid in British ports forrepairs ............ ..--00.- none 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish. .Banks New found 
land Western & Georgies. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel...Long Island 
Sound to Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking...-..-... .-- nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken........-. nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Amer- 
ican fisheries 


The Mackerel Fisheries have changed very much during the last ten 
years formerly the fish were caught with Line & Hook but now the 
universal way to take them is with Seins The Cod fisheries have also 
very materially changed the Cod fish were formerly taken with hand 
line & Hook but Trawls are now mostly used. Cur Vessels all of them 
take their fish from the Banks of New Foundland we have tried the 
Bay fishing but with us it did not pay. Our Mackerl fishermen all of 
them fish in American Waters for the reason that the Bay fishing does 
not pay them, as the Mackerel are not near as plenty nor are they as 
good a quality as they can find nearer home 


E. P. COOK 
Sworn an | subscribed to before me, this tenth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS. HILLIARD 


Notary Publie 


a | 


a 


‘Lawrence. their voyages have not been as remunerative as those of 


- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8159 


No. 90. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of J & L 
N Paine have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Sixteen 
years, at Provincetown Mass. and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


2 2 2 2 2 2 
total 6 yrs 12 vess 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .... ae viola F po 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not 

including Magdalene Islands ..........0.0-s0s-eee sige waieas none 
Average value of Vessels each.............--..Four thousand dollars 
Average of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c................ $2000. to each vessel 
Average value of Insurance..... a hideselensacsioecal sialon cee 240. each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. #35, 
Average value of Commissions, &¢ ..........-.. reer ee rrr $50, 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 

packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor 


ON BhOtGcs 2c ecee s wiaeese Rates eit wwe ance eae haere aoe $10,000 
Number of Vessels lost............... ee geet tenes none 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
BGT mS ONG << 2c aa 2:45 Os wie enw ere woe ods BAEK o'xke'a Shee bie none 
Number of Lives lost......... eens ts ic emcee eg rales tye ees one 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. 

WOE OWik cect arc wicr see so acea eas eee eee al hatsle sta winrwiE.aicveieiere etal d 75 cts, 


Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 
&e., per bbl 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores none 

Lotal value of Mackerel do ......... cc ccccceccessecsrecccces none 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..-....-.-- $200. 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$200 each vessel $400, yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.....-.--- Siaeiensiats nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages .. ..-.-.----- $400. yearly 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs ...--..---++--- .csece $100, 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
From Long Island to Newfoundland including Bay of St Lawrence 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ..---.--.---- nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken — . 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries ae 

For the past Sixteen years we have sent two vessels to Gulf of St 


our vessels that have fished in other localities The last year 1876, the 

voyages in the Bay of St Lawrence were almost a total failure. No fish 
r r vessels inside of British limits. ; ay 

ies aera JI&LWN PAINE 


Sworn and snbscribed to before me, this ninth day of May 1877 Be- 


_ fore the Subscriber a Notary Public for the County of Barnstable 


- 


B F HUTCHINSON 
“Som | Notary Public 


3160 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 91. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Philip 
A Whorf have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Seven 
years, at Provincetown Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


NGOf VESSEIS GMPlOVOR ccies sh icaaw case eens Wels oes Sane cee SG Five 

No:cOf TIPS MAKG 2 oo eae care eee One average time five months 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .............. None 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene TALsMS es <ro 8d sok ce vrais wace ae seme ts as ae... None 

Average value of Vessels Sache ee ee Dene a. Be 


Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e. . $2,000 yearly pr each vessel 

Average Insurance.... On each vessel $1500, Outfits insured for full 
amount 

Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. . .$35,00 

Average value of Commissions, &¢........ $100, Each vessel annually 

Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore . $7,000, 

Number of Wessels 10st-a3. «6/20 sa03 Sais t ee ewes steno rae tise: None 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 


Number of bives 10st 5..75-.43 . e22c se oeee hoes eee ee a One 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 

OW anid nn sae trek og aces mea re . een ae eee ae awn $1,00 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., 

DOPOD 2 asta hasten ceca Sui as uae aes wre teoeera seen eens $2, 00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .00 None 
Total value of Mackerel do)... 4oce0s-cwecevececwcw suey occas 00 None 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel. ..No 1 $16, No 2s 
$12, No 3s 88. 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ....No 1 $12, No 2 $8, No 3 $6. 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ......-.--. $170. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DUS) So bse wwecenidaesteahe re conte ae ee ee atee rie tees ..-- $300. 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western, and Grand Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
American shores Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..... ae ee Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken ......--.- Nothing 
F ac : as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
sheries 
In my experience Bay fishing in British waters has been very unprof- ‘ 
itable and in many cases tended with loss. both to owners and crews. 
Our fishing consists largely of Western and Grand Bauk fishing some 
of the smaller vessels fishing around our own shores 
Jo not use the British waters inside of three miles ° 
P A WHORF 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this ninth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) B F HUTCHINSON 
Notary Public 


eg i "9 ; 
| AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3161 
No. 92. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of B. A. 
Lewis & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Twelve years, at Provincetown and that since the Washington Treaty 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed..... te eee Pe A eee ebcencele 

IR gee bE CEG SE Sle ee 5 per year 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence ...........-........ none for 7 years 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands 


Average value of Vesselseach.....- Heed eicid sie ats eis hints @kicarelete oats $3000.00 
_ Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c............. $2500,00 per year 
Average value of Insurance........ Sn re ree $400,00 “« «& 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. $35.00 
Average value of Commissions, &c................-. $250.00 per year 


_ Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. $3000.00 

mamber of Vessels lost... 2... ..5-6-.cseee Pete VIG tawea ee ---. None 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost..... TET OL PEL Eee er eee Te One 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
“aiem value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 

Total value of Mackerel do. 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 

_ Average amount paid iv British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
_ Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

|. Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

, Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish. ...... Grand Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken . 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fisheries 

Untill within 7 or 8 years we sent vessels in St Lawrence bay for 

Mackerel, Our experience was that vessels that went there done noth- 

‘ing. could not pay their expences, So we sent our vessels setneing oft 
our own shores and found they done much better, This is the expe 


rience of all who sent vessels for Mackerel in the bay oom Parte 
; 3. A. LEWIS 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this tenth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS. HILLIARD 


Notary Public 
No. 93. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of David 
Conwell have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Twenty 
six years, at Provincetown Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 
80 called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


3162 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No.of Vessels: €mploved «css ces eces cena wea vans esas oes onsce BUS 
No. of TripS Made. ..:...0s0 case cscccvie cece aoe ree chee ote one Trip a year 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence. ..........--eseees Se re none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence...... ee er none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 

ing Magdalene Islands........ arr ees es tern paae Swale a none 
Average value of Vessels each......-.... . Forty five Hundred dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &¢. Two Thousand dollars each Sch’r 
Average value of Insurance......... Two hundred dollars each vessels 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo .. $35 
Average value of Commissions, &c 
One. Hundred Twenty dollars each Schr 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Fifteen thousand dollars yearly 


NUTNCIOL, V CSHOIS NOS bot acca aso a aeniee ne ee a ei eee aa none 
Value of Vessels lost, including ontflts . 06.10.00 sce asstenscs se 
Value of Fish lost ......... Acie age nil wate ee aele Ra siointsle seems s e 
IND DOr OLIVES 1ONbe.< 2 s,c> sae ns Gon Ceacaan ee tas Mevelin ewer = 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
OW: wrecrnsiea slo etaia gp acters ec bess oars ce weer ate ree ere aes i $1,00 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, ey per 
DBL cairas atest eg sands cucie hema meee eee en mee esc $2,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... none 
Total: value.of Mackerel dO) .5:.o<.4.22/s505 ve asdes oe awa sepreaceees _ 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
I sold for $14,50, $9 & $6 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel............-.....-. . had none 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year. $150,00 at my place 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Banks La Have & Western Bank 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Sidney C. B. 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ............ nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken....... .-. nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
In regard to Fishing in British waters for the past Seven years it has 
not (in general) been profitable, Codfish have been plentier nearer home 
and the prices for new fish being better than for fish salted a longer 
time. I have keep my Vessels on the home grounds and Grand Bank, 
I have sent no vessels to the Bay of St Lawerance this seven years. 
neather have my Vessels taken Codfish or mackeral inside the precribed 


British limets 
DAVID CONWELL 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this tenth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS. HILLIARD, 
Notary Public. 
No. 94. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Cen- 
tral Wharf Company have been engaged in the fishing business for the 


‘ 


Shirt Tite 
i 
e. “4 
= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3163 


past Thirteen years, at Wellfleet and that since the Washington Treaty 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been enipioyed: as follewn: 


No. of Vessels employed .............. vawadecece cccccse Thirteen 13 

No. of Frips made ...... errr eee ore 4 to Each vessel yearly 

2 187 7 5 76 

No of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... 0 ae ae ae sit 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.... 450 75 45 

1873 1875 1876 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Mardalene SNS sce. ass nsec ace acsan se all caught at Magdeline 
Average value of Vessels each .................000- coccccces 85500, 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e.......... SLAW E digaces aie 2400, 
mverage Value of Insurance... ...... 0... ..cccseecseces 711 Ea vessel 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
$35. Pr Month 
Average value of Commissions, &c.............. $200. to Each vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .815.000 


Number of Vessels lost -...... + «+-e. One vessel at Bay St. Lawrence 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.............0.---- eee $7.900, 
Value of Fish lost...... Ee re eae amas winapi dwieceaens abe w--- ©2000. 
SRHIHOOT Ol iV OR; LOR. 2.55 ares rs)ne w als a's ig Wa ikis iain we sigacasialese One. 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per 
GWiicas erase Siva sa picciech mie toe Sarat ay sieicice @inisaie Ga ais ol 75 cts $2.00 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 
Sie iyetsts Prue eva aaisisinie's sie dicie vieid Siac haa Soa sG ks )\ecm see sna alens MOO 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.. None 
Total value of Mackerel do............ eaemaeuake eka casica. 1. We 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel... . 16.00 12.00 8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.......... eveee 12.00. 8.00. 6.00 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
$125.00 at our place 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 


MUON ages tise ease Me ae ins Sedeniety Gainer iets homed ates Nothing 

_ Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.... -..--.------ Nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.....-...---.---- None 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs.......--.-. ------- None 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Banks & Georges 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape May to Mt. Desert 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.....-.------ Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken...-..--- Nothing 


not procure an american crew to fish in Bay of St Li 


a 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries - o 
For the past ten years fishing in British waters has been unprofitable. 

We confine our business to American waters entirely now. We could 

wwrence. The ves- 

sels that have been sent there have made an entire failure and great 
loss to their owners & fitters. Our business is strictly confined to Mack. 
erel fishing. Our Shore Mackerel are of much better quality & bring 
much larger prices than the bay Mackerel. 
STEPHEN YOUNG agt Cent Wht Co 
Wi ibed to before me, this 10 day of May 18¢¢ 

r Heal) sels THOMAS KEMP _ 

Notary Public 


3164 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. 95. 


This isto certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Commer- 
cial Wharf Co. have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Twenty five years, at Wellfleet and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


NO: Of VGssels CMpPlOVGd <..25'-Ssasccewansesincce tases secs ences Fifteen 
NG: Of Trips WAG ccc. mck ss a ee we eae eee Sees cs Four Ea. vessel 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence... ....+.sccccceseee None since 1872. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St Lawrence............-. None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore not in- 
cluding Magdalene 2slands2 sc. pce cade aves ccasee eee es None 
ALVGlrave: VAIUG OL V GRSOIB OAChi ye soveceeg occ =e ee sale eee $6500. Ea 
Average value of Outtits, Salt, Bait, &c.............. $2000. ach vessel 
Average value of. Insurance... 26-6. Se oe Coe eats $765 ach vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. .$35. Ea 
Average value of Comimiassions, &¢... 2.66 i505 2s. oes Sec cece $200. 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, in- 
cluding expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .$13,000 


Number of. Vessels: lost 2 os5cay.c <aisa wc siete bwoe caren ote earee wou als ve None 
Value of Vessels lost; including ontits 2.36 se50006520 coe sce ns None 
Valueiof Kish: loats.c;.c esis eecs acces hea Caeieee oom cae Sse e None 
Number of lives lost............. Povaicnss Geas's > cas aeeeus sae se None 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 

OWS. siaicag cis aus assis dav ona e ea ele ee Corsa a saan aioe eens 75 ets 
‘Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting salting &c., 

DOLE WO 6s occ wee cise nes Hee cee Cue Cae e ee be eee eee oes $2.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.... None 
Total value of Mackerel d0.5225.co0sceu sees coe sh sets es eeees None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.... 16.00 12.00 8.00 
Average nfarket value of Bay Mackerel... -......-.esceee cee 12. 8. 6 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.......-..-- $125, 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

UCR a pere Gee een etn oe edcaenioeeine ind Cielo ae eam ees None 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.............--- .« None 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages........- faders wraeeersrete None 
Amonant paid in British ports for repairs....... ..---0 ececss ses None 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Bank & Georges 
Location frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape Hery & Mt. Dessert 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
erles 
By reasons of entire change in mode of Catching Mackerel, Viz from 
Hook and line to Seine, The Mackl fishing in the Bay of St Lawrence is 
not prosecuted by our fishermen the waters of the Gulf are not Calculated 
for Seining owing to shallowness and tendency of the fish to frequent 
the shores, which entirely precludes the possibillity of taking them in 


quantities 
NOAH SWETTI 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 14th day of May 1877 
(Seal.) THOS KEMP 
Notary Publie 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3165 
No. 96. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Mer- 
eantile Wharf Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Seven years, at Wellfleet and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 
No, of Vessels CIPIOSCO oy oe ec ee is Pd aces Twenty (20) 
BEIM: PRIS TABOO oss said 2. 2 aes be ae ob ooo ok 4 to Each versel yearly 

- 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.... 0 trips 4 0 0 0 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence............ 800 Bb 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands.........None caught near Magdalin Islands 
Average value of Vessels each..... usa ee eer ree 86500, 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c................ #2500, Each 
Average value of Insurance............. 0.200 .00e $800, Each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. $35, 
Average value of Commissions, &c...........-. --» $200 Each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore .# 48,000 


BEM OIOL VY OSROIS: LORGs Sr xicuncwes a caw ve Sac sce eels ese aa we eos One 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.....................2.-- 29000 
SEMEN OP INRNOB US. cc coo xicismetmnninw ho wasiee area eiiveaé-bineice gags None 
BMBIDOM Ol RAVES LOSE. os .2.010 5 aa ainle owe ee-ea tains wa wea eb De waice None 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 

RW sate chew Sip wud lo Wasa 05S cx ie bred % SS. Biko & wreia/@e Bee nw lh bie alk vrs lcie\k oie 75 cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., per 

1) Se Oi A rarer Seale tise oe hia own a ee ah eee eee gira eure 2.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .. Nothing 
metal Valle:OL MACKOCrel dO... .624c0 sc ce0csaeseaices aides eon ‘otbing 


5 2. OU 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.... as : on 


| = 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel............-- mae 8.00 Ae 

_ Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year....--.-- - ++. 8150, 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap- 
PHIOS Psi s tae rere etc $200 since the Treaty 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.....----------- Nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages....-------------- Nothing 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs......-..-.---+--+-+---. Nowe 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish pa 
: We send none fishing 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape May to Mt. Desert 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking. -.------+---+ 5 sare. 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken..-..----- Nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 
eries a | 
We have sent no vessels to Bay of St. Lawrence since 1573, that year 

we sent four, they did not pay expenses. We lost money on every . — 

Since that time knowing that the business In Bay of St. Law fein =e 

not prove profitable we have confined our fishing business entire y i the 

American waters. The shore Mackerel being of better quality, wring 

* better prices & we take them with Seines, seldom using hook & Lines. 


3166 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


We do not in future propose to use English waters for our fishing busi- 
ness. Wecould not ship an American crew for such a purpose. 
JESSE H. FREEMAN 


Agnt Mercantile Wharf Co 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 9th day of May 1877. 
(Seal.) THOMAS KEMP 


Notary Public 
INO. 91s 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Henry 
Nickerson have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Eight 
years, at Dennisport and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels having been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels:employed: 22s c.ssecceecue pat pisinw'a dare ais staras So prais)) a 
No. of Trips made... .. 2. esses a0 Posten Scie sina bic sadist ates ct Five 
ING, of Trips:to Bay Sb. Law cence 2.5.50 sicc ane we sense as aGsitsiee none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence...........-. none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 

ing: Magdalene Tslands:,.:. 3.4 sic cca nd os wos teases none none 
Average value of. Vesselsench 2.2205 sco cow eawaye eens wa wasn SOOON 
Average value of Ontfits, Salt, Bait, &c ...............--22--. $2500 
Average: value of ‘Insurance ...2s. 625.26. 5-ie0sces $625. to Each vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. $40. 
Average value of Commissions, &c.............-- $250. to Each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-house, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. $12. 000 

Number of Vessels lost 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 

Tota] value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 


Per Ol ous ses ewe ee eens sees eee Cae ace ee arene $2.50 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... none 
Total value of Mackerel do........ Seeaie Ole irmid welp ee vee telaeieets none 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel. $16.00 $12.00 $8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel... .......2..----0---e0e none 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year. . $150. at our place 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 


DUON sii Saca ae once ne Sow te s whee Mca ak Wes wR SS eee ESS nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring........-.....+ - nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages..........-...-..- nothing 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs ...... a eceroiat ater ote tea nothing 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
; Grand Bank & Georges 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Mount Desert 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.... .....-... nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.... .....- nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
erles = 
For the past Eight years I confine my business to American waters 


entirely. 
HENRY NICKERSON 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Eleventh day of May 1877 
(Seal.) SAMUEL S BAKER Notary Public. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3167 
No. 98. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Nel 
son & Harlow have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 25 
years, at Plymouth and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


Mee OE C OBBOIS CINDIOVER Ao sii vad onc sioalacc sicenoetakcen os Boadean 4. 
No. of Trips made 

io. Ot ering vo. bay St. Lawrenee ce. és... < sects nad ccoce bases dons None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence..............None 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands ; 


me Vvorngo Value Of V OSsels ahi s 2..:05 ses scauscccesc te cacucetecc. 8.3000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e..... 2.2... 1550 for each Vessel 
Average value of Insurance.............. LOPE T TEE ST ETE 2000 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
j $35 to 40 per month 
Average value of Commissions, &c. 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore...85500 


MS RIOF GL CRSOIS 1ORG Sacre reeds yeah ote chet eka acw sine None 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

MAMMIG OLB IMir WORE 5.55 coo S46 yep an Ft supp ak cen cae eae ensures eee None 
SRBUIDEL OL Li VEN LOSU osc aso eu caaieemcs em aac Gass (a's bab e% niccts sa Ue 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, spliting, salting, &c., 


per bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....None 
moi -Valtie Of Mackerel do... 26 a. oe.csis cce'scc ses sede pais Seas aaa eoale None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel ......-...-. $3500 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 


RAVIOR Sam sain gine ee 5 Gasca 8 sicietnie hs oie Fic Simersie;navie wiewterew'e's $650 per year 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ...-.-..-----.------d00 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages ......--- in 6 years 20.000 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs .....-...----- --++------ 5.50 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
: Banks of Newfoundland 


- Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


Chiefly on our own Coast & Banks 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before takeu . 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
fisheries | | 

The Vessels from this place are with one or two exceptions wholly ea- 
gaged in Codfishing and their fishing grounds are the Banks of New- 
foundland they resort to the Port in the Br Provinces for Bait and some 
articles for supplies, a large portion of the crews are Br subjects and in 
many cases the entire crews are from Nova Scotia. : 

’ No Fish from this port are caught in Br Waters and We do not con- 


_ sider there is any so valuable fishing grounds in their waters for ‘od as 
the Banks of Newfoundland or any fishing ground for Mackerel as on 
our own Coast and we never send vesse 


ls, infthe waters there or should 


wish to. WILLIAM H. NELSON. 


3168 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this eleventh day of May 1877. 
(Seal.) ARTHUR LOW 

Notary Public 
No. 99. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Manter 
& Blackmer have been engaged in the fishing business for the past fif- 
teen years, at Plymouth Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has beeu in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed ..... pie inate Ssigres os wary a heese Be ones Four (4) 
NO200 ETIPS MAQG po coco eceics eae a eee ete eee 1 Yearly to each vessel 


No. of Trips to Bay St Lawrence 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalene Islands 


Average value of Vessels easels: oc oie see os hoc ein cece ses $2,500 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e...- $1,200 yearly to each vessel 
Average value of Insurance...... a ivf afeitrea heen ces $100 to each vessel 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
: $35 pr month 
Average value of Commissions, Wc ............ $80 pr vessel each year 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c for curing and packing, in- 
cluding expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore $7.000 yearly 
Number of Vessels lost 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt. 
1.00 
itt value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
Total value of Mackerel do. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.....--..... $200. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait. ice, aud various supplies 
$500, yearly 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish. ..Grand-Bank, 
Georgies, Quero, St Peters and all banks bordering on Gulf Stream 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape Henry to Newfoundland 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.......--..- No value 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken 
Facts as to change in location and mode of conducting American Fish- 
eries 
In former years we used to send our vessels to the Bay of St. Law- 
rence: but not finding it successful we send now to deep water banks : 
such as Grand, Georgies & Quero banks. 
MANTER & BLACKMER 
By PRINCE MANTER 


Sworn & subscribed, to before me, this sixteenth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) ARTHUR LOW Notary Public 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3169 
No. 100. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Abra- 
ham H. Tower, have’ been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Fifty years, at Cohasset, Mass. and that since the Washington Treaty 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed........ Bae acer a in clomiavon i Rie acc Seaek Five 
No. of Trips WRG r mare eases fein eh Six yearly, in all 30 
INO, Of ELips LO) SY OC. LAWLODEO verxic = c6 wos oo sida s bes one tke None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. ............ None 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands 
Average value of Vessels each. ..... Bie rnient Rie Four thousand dollars. 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &¢.. Twenty five hundred dollars. 
Average value of Insurance.... Two hundred & fifty dollars per Vessel 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Thirty dollars 
Average value of Commissions, &c.... Two hundred dollars per Vessel. 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Five thousand dollars. 


PEUINDOPIOL VGNSOIS LOSb cdc seers eretsem arid ecw, Zoe aces None— 
Value of Vessels lost, ingluding outfits... ..............cccee cece 0— 
Value of Fish lost.......... Mite As ciaeveo ae a oeilon aie fae alae o— 
BAIN DeL OL VIVES lOSb.t.5 sa sew ecu sessae ceive eas eee None. 


Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., per 
Dis recs eh astewicce bas paws his gu lace, seigieg ental Saete two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
Nothing, none taken 
Total value of Mackenel do.........--..... ee ss és 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel — 
Eight dollars per Barrel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
: One hundred & fifty dollars. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DHSS oes sks eee MP Smee Ege ae rt rere eee ee Nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring..-..-----.-+--- 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages...--------+----- 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs...-------+--++-+++++ 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Locations frequented by American vessel for Mackerel 
Capes Delaware to Mount Desert. 
Actual value of fish in the water, before taking 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken...---. _-+ Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
- eries 


For the last seven or Eight years our Mackerel fishermen have been 
limited to the catch off the American Coast, owing to the Bay of St 
Lawrence fishery being so very uneertain, as to offer oe eeeoatanreree) 
to go there—My vessels have not been there during that period— 
£ y ABRAHAM H TOWER 
— Sworn an cribed to before me, this Eighth day of May 1877 
> tebe J Q A LOTHROP 
< . Justice of the Peace 


399 F 


3170 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 101. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of John 
Bates has been engaged in fishing business for the past Thirtyfive 
years, at Cohasset Mass and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed ........ Stee teeucs Pees oes ae a ee Seven 
No..Of Trips Made. 62 2c. tna tc baacteewie ne meee so Six yearly in all 42 
Wo. of. Drips 10. Bay st. lawrence... ec. 5y once es eocicnees aes none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence....-......-.. none 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not in- 
cluding Magdalene Islands 

Average value of Vessels each..-.....-.-...-- - Five thousand dollars 

Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........Three thousand dollars 
Average value of Insurance 

Three hundred dollars yearly for each vessel 

Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 

f Thirty dollars 

Average value of Commissions, &¢. .,..-<)..aee--+- aces $200 pr vessel 

Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. . $7000. 


INH DOP OL VOSECIS lO8G<. < 2555 4 c6.c5a4 cee eee cee de hee delenit one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits... ....-.......0--.-55-: $5000 
Value of Fsh lost 

NUM Bel OL LIVES 1OShiS <6. oved case Seee oo Cla oie chet tees none 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 


DL Ginvew oe ata poemae Consens etneaesece eee CWO GOLALS DE tal reL 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..nothing 
Total value of Mackerel do.....-. Pr or re tine er no receipts 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
eight dollars pr Barrel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
one hundred & fifty dollars 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 


DCR ooo cecawc ees mates cone ee eee eae Se euhisieck waa see nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring............-.-. nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.....-.... s-s2s5--Nothing 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs,.......-....-. asi gia HT aI ve 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape Henlopen to Mount Desert 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking........ very uncertain 
-\ctual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .-.... o & 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

For the last seven years mackerel have been so scarce and uncer- 
tain in the Bay of Saint Lawrence I have been obliged to abandon 
the fishery in those waters 

JOHN BATES 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Seventh day of May 1877 


J. Q. A. LOTHROP 
Justice of the Peace 


oe 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 3171 


No. 102, 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the f 
Baker & Ellis have been engaged in the fishing baluées for the Tan 
Twenty Five years, at Dennisport, Mass—and that since the Washing- 
ton Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed 
as follows: 


Bde. Ole Pens CINDIOVOO 2c wc aes sinininie pie Sea Patho ee adie Ten 
No. of Trips made.....-.......... Six trips each yearly total 60 trips 
No. of trips to Bay St. Lawrence........... vacate isiataty wich ee - hone 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence............ none 
No of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclading 

Magdalene Islands............ Seeawe en Semas panwenare none none 


Three Thousand a6 66 “ 
Average value of Insurance ......-....... Four Hundred Dollars each 
Average Value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 

: #40. per month 
Average value of Commissions, &c..............0.--2000. #200, Fach 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packiug, 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore ‘ 

i Fourteen Thousand Dollars— 
SEIMDOM OLY EASELS LOS 1 2)."2050 Rec toss vi on ages as aecaieares none 
Value of Vessels lost, including outtits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per cwt 

Fifty cts. pr ewt 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 


voT ee 0 0) sane ae A Mego Rae N Peaee Motor Ae et eer Y™ two Dollars — 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.... none 
mtAL Valo Of MaACKerel GG. oc 55056 discs a sse dois cig satsataretie’s none 
ee 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........ 16—10—S 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two ITundred & Fifty 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 

mount paid to British fishermen for herring 

Amvunt paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel _ 

. Nothing East of Mt Desert — 
Actual value of Fish in the water before taking..-....+-+-+-- nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Atnerican fish- 

eries : 5 
_ About 15. years ago we sent our. last vessels to the Gulf of St Law- 
rence for fish the business being unprofitable. and vessels not Paving 
expenses. since which time we have found it much to our advantage to 
fish on our own shores—it is impossible to get a native crew to go to 
_ the Gulf of St Lawrence fishing—one of our last trips there absent about 
11 weeks only took twenty Bbls of fish valued less than two hundred 
Dollars seventeen men being employed—Seining has taken place of 


3172 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Hand line fishing on our own coasts and we find that it is greatly to our 
advantage to fish nearer home. it being more advantageous. our own 
fish being worth more than those taken in British waters and much 


quicker sales and much more profitable business. 
BAKER & ELLIS 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 21st day of May 1877 
(Seal) SAMUEL S. BAKER 
Notary Public 
No. 103. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Levi 
Eldridge have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Twenty 
years, ‘at South Chatham and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


NO: OF KOSBOIS EMI DIOVOU so f00c 2 to cese reece eeae eee ee Eight $8 
WNo::Gb EVips MagdG oss «0h osk.e cease ea eopiscie es 3 to Each vessel 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence. ...... 0 0 0 0 0 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence ............-. none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene. taiands2 2242. ccos Sciee ous ees os Bara ae aie none 
Average value of Vessels Ga@h'.:<. 2 sack cao sos ve pect cme $5600. 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........--.. he vaniee ee $2500. 
Average value Of-Insnrantesis sie sea sews Segek eee ee es $568 each vessel 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
$35 Pr Month 
Average value of Commissions, &¢.............-.. $175 to each vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .$7.500. 


Number ot Vessels lostsic25 6. asec once k Gerace een. one vessel 
Valaé of Vessels: lost; inelauding onuthts:..: co sece 23h eodneese $6500. 
Vaitte Of Pishlostsvces occcgeau she os some eeeee Meee $800 
Somber of hives lost: 42 05, 12.0025 4s cee eee Are eee Three 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
CWiiig es erase attr eres fees ee ee Sasi a er ae oe 75e $2.00 
sae value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Neate et sais st beter atin ne DA OR Ce ee ee $2.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores . .---no0ne 
Potal-valueor Mackerel G0... o<.8ua- cemeercteet caw ke ees none 


Average market value of American Shore. Mackerel. .$16.00 12.00 8.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year......-. $130. each 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

PUES 7.S a8 2d voces ene teia see acre eae ae wither eae oes nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen for BOITIRG owes wicsles ens nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as WageS ......---- wes Fiaeeiows none 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs..........-..2...-22eee- none 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Bank Quereau & G. Bank 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
from Cape May to Mt. Desert 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..... ere eee es nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken ides ues nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of Sonducens American fish- 
eries 
We think it is not profitable for us to send our vessels to fish in Brit- 


= am, | 


SS SS TE = 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3173 


ish waters—we confine our business to American waters entirely onr 
business is confined strictly to Shore fishing asit pays us we think much 
better than Bay fishing would j 
LEVI ELDRIDGE 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Eleventh day of May 1877 
(Seal.) SAMUEL 8S BAKER 
Notary Public 
No. 104. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of D. F. 


Weekes have been engaged in the fishing business for the past seven 
years, at So. Harwich and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed . .........5.5 222. average of three per, year 
INO; OL PEIDS IMAGO S501 sc oes eae We cd ei 2 to banks and six to 8 Mackerel 
peo. Of lrindto: Day Sts Lawrences. :5a.<exesseseavaseslessccesaes none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.............. none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not in- 
cluding Magdalene Islands ......... ee MOU ic rt PC “ 
Average value of Vessels each ................. Five thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c......... Two thousand + 
Average value of Insurance ...................- Six hundred se 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
forty dollars per Month 
Average value of Commissions, &c...... Two hundred and Twenty five 
Average value of Wharves, Iish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Six Thousand dollars 


BUI DEOL VCSSCIS: Ost ctece ote Stn bse are aie cis eis alors o Widatee alo Two 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ........... ten thousand dollars 
IU Ob ISN OSE os Ae, eierele ex aio anes ateslg seek als fifteen hundred * 


Number of lives lost 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., per- 


BEG sate oer aes Re a eI rer ey ee ice geacu ees oue dollar 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xe., per 
DR rote a ters Oi oon Hee el oe ere lend. wan, ert ...two dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..... none 
otel value of Mackerel do..........--sesseeseceee +s ase _+++-None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel... .316. $12, 35.00 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel....---.---++++++++seeee5 none 


_ Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 


about one hundred & fifty Dollars 


- Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, aud various supplies. 


nothing 
_Amount-paid to British fishermen for herring....-.+-+-+----- nothing 


, 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages Ate 
1870 1871 1872 me 
SS00, S660, $1400, nothing since 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs. ...+-+-++ +++++5 +505: nothing 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
‘ : Grand bank Westirn & Georges 


- Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


Cape May to Mt Desert 
nothing 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ..------ ee ~ 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken....-. 


4 


3174 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 

The Bay St. Lawrence fishing entirely abandoned by those engaged 
in the fishing business here and all confine themselves to the shore fish- 
ing & Georges Bank for mackerel as the greater outlay and long time 
used on the trips to the bay is so much that it is impossible carry on 
that fishing and from the present appearence of things our shore fishing 
will be in the hand of British hands as their cheaper vessels, and cheaper 
_ hire of crew’s, and outfits enable them to place the fish in our markets 
at a rate to us disasterous 

D. F. WEEKES 


Sworn and subseribed to before me, this twelvth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) SAMUEL 8S BAKER 
Notary Publie 
No. 105. 


This is certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Caleb 
Small have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Twenty 
seven years, at South Harwich Mass and that since the-Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed 
as follows: 


ING: Of Vessels employed J. ss5 sei sec edsccsne pute eee Five 
one & two trips yearly to each vessel to 


No. of Tripsimiade-..-.+---- the Banks 8 or 10 trips Shore mackerelling 
No, of Trips to Bay St: bawrehce. \.ceegc too op 2g os eee eee none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.....-.........- none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

Mardatene Islands c< occven occa ces wawcus wate nne cree ee eee none 
Average value of Vessels each......-........-. Five Thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c....-. 2500 to each vessel yearly 
average: value: oF Insurance: 222227 ok See ee pee cee alae ces $200 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Capt 70 Crews $40 each 
Average value of Commissions, &c...... Mecaeiars ma wee $200 each vessel 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
$12000 Twelve Thousands 


Wainber of "Vesstls lost..<.06 voc once cee oe eee faareiieS none 
Value‘of Vessels’ lost, in¢ladivy outfite;/7. 25... <secesse hae ssk ae noue 
W aldG:0f, PiShlOst ai5. 5c saserse cade ces eee a ee ee $4000 
umber Of Lives 1686.62 eck cree ee ee ee gree mrera ee @ one 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
one dollar 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
DBlisos ss ecewieil oc os esas eeeieee ceca eee $2,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... - none 
Total valnue:of Mackereldo ...<.....2...<cisscsees OR aE ees SP none 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
no1$816 no 2 $12 no 3 $7,50 cts 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel...............00- none caught 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.........-- -$200 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
years 1873 & 1874 $500 each year nothing since 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring....... .. year 1873 $1000 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.... Average $500 yearly— : 


7 
RE Aye Tt 


© *®®Potal value of Mackerel do .-.-.------+ sere ertrteer ttt ee 


\ 


| ae - 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8175 


‘Amount paid in British ports for repairs.......................... no 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 


Western Bank Banquereu Bank Grand Bank 
Locations frequently by American vessels for Mackerel 


eles iele ..-.. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .......... nothing 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 


Have sent no vessels to the Bay of St Laurence for the last eight 
years excepting one vessel to Boone Bay for a load of Herrin gs in 1873 
It will not pay to send vessels to the Bay of St Laurence for mackerel 
the catch is so uncertain and expence so large It is a Bad place to 
seine fish on account of shallow water and foul Bottom The Cod fishery 
is an entirely Bank fishery owing no allegince to any govenment The 
Western Bank Quereaw and Grand Bank being from 100 miles to 400 
miles from any land 

| CALEB SMALL 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twelvth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) SAMUEL. S. BAKER 
Notary Public 
No. 106. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Val- 


' entine Doane have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 


Thirty Eight years, at Harwich Port and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 


No. of Vessels employea..... Rn EEE TT eee ere eT ee ree Seven 
No. of Trips made. .Cod fisherman 2 Trips Yearly mackl fishern 8 to 10 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence..................none Since 1862 — 
‘No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.....-......-- none 
“No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclading 
- Magdalene Islands.......... praevor8 a’o Seatiacaevsayensetacotet stele hie ere bia sare none 
Average value of Vessels each......- about 3,000 To .12000 dollar Each 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..$3000 To Each Vessal Yearly 
Average value of Insurance ............-.--- pate siciel cae Safa ere S225 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Captn $68 Crews 30 Each 
Average value of Commissions, XC ....-------++2++++ wee eeeeeees #120 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 


including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
ae é $11000 Eleven Thousand 


-‘Number of Vessels lost .......--++-++-----2-09 sense aera 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits... - - $1800 Each—Total & dpsed 
Value of Fish lost ...... ..--- Gore tye ea Sean ombie ote eae EI hs 
‘Number of Lives lost ©)6) wie, 6 em h ae mies aero spapeheseyt) examine. oe OG as . mieven— 

Total value of Fish,taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ryt 

“Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 1,80 

DOP oe eis eminear ha sesneasee ierages anes ts Arlene as ; 
“Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores --. jesse 


y: ‘ican Shore Mackerel : 
Average market value of Amer! eS 


3176 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Average market value of Bay MAGKGIGl! co. wane eas o.--- None Caught 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year...... - tee $180 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DHGSeis Ste diane 's wersidiw ayes =e Ne ee er ee eA none — 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ...........-.-.- nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages ......... Sateen siete none 
Amount paid in British ports for repair8.....-...---..+2----- nothing 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
From Cape Charles to Mt Desert 
Locations frequented by American ves- 


nels for: MackOrel j2c:ccc.00 cox cree ose 6c re Fee 6c “ 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking .............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .... -. MAAR Ore iy 


Facts as to change in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

have Sent no vessels To Fish In British Waters for the Last fifteen 
Years our Fishing since 1862 has wholly been done In American Waters 
as no American crews Would go To Fish In Bayst Laurance or any 
British Waters those that have occasionally Tried made a failur and 
serious losses to owner & outfitters & crews—consequently our Fishing 
is wholly carried on In American Waters. 

VALENTINE. DOANE 


Sworn and subscribed to before me this Ninth day of May 1877 
(Seal.) SAMUEL. 8S. BAKER 
Notary Public 
No. 107. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of T. B. 
Baker have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Eleven 
years, at Harwich Port and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


ING: OL Vessels etiployed 025. osseniccesaua fet Wee ceeee yes wee we Five 
INO GEL TIPS MANG cc 20. oie Sema g esas Cee ee ewe eee Six 
No.of Trips:to Bay St. bawrencs:.. ol.eccceat wa esce dc. o ee ee ees None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. ..-....--..--- None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not in- 
clading- Magdalene Islands <2. ..assee sccwy ec scneere a ecoeees None 
AVGtave value of vessels each: os. S's 3.2 secs Six Thousand Dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c....Twenty five Hundred =“ 
Average value of Insurance. .......... = ieee ses Two do fifty ‘§ 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Thirty dollars per mo 
Average value of Commissions, &c.. .. Two Hundred Twenty five dollars 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
. Ten thousand dollars 


NUMDETOL Vesselsilast . 220. owl: sus tae oe ae ae a None 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits...... Constance sin eciete Caines none 
Walue: Of Bish hosts. orca cvciscesc toate Pays aed oa een Ome eens do 
NamDer OF daiVes Wostes coo. ose Sy oc iene reek ee nee eS Two 


bbl ....... Schisitcs/8in ia <rererwrsi sine Siena Sw ag es wile uecateatets Three dollars 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
otal ‘value. of Mackerel desi. .sacccius cecil h eck so edere sak noe 


oS 
oa 


ave 
— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3177 


; Is 28 3 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel...... ld x 9% 7 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year....Two Hundred 
Twenty five dollars ; 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 


BU OR is oe aie 5c sian 1a ae 'in'e = aw sain'g ewe saci Soinelntnee sie, aeeees i 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring................ ss si 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.................- ss 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs...........-........- 6 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish..-......... “ 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Nothing east of Mt Desert 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken “ 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

Not considering fishing in British waters remunerative Have sent no 
vessells to Bay of St Lawrence since have been in business 

T. B. BAKER 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 21st day of May 1877 
(Seal.) SAMUEL. 8S. BAKER 
Notary Public 


© 16); 2 618 '0:6 2 


No 108. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of V. 
Doane Jr & Co. have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
ten years, at Portsmouth N. H. and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed........--.. ieieas hea teeo sce aes aan wns Ten 
No. of Trips made each season...--..----e ee eres eee e eee eet eee: Fifty 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.....-.-----+----- ee OCs 2 rica a 

. No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence,..-.--.------ None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands ........-.--- Poe ie Noasad Ae ee eb ase aint None 
Average value of Vessels each ....-----+- +--+ Six thousand dollars 


Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Wc _ ep ene 
7 | each season, including Boats & Seines : $2500, 
_ Average value of Insurance..... Twenty-five Hundred dolls per season 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz, wages per mo 
; $300, for time employed 
Average value of Commissions, \c.. .. Two Thousand dolls per season 
- Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
‘including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor ou shore 
¢ Nine thousand dolls per year 


Number of Vessels lost ..--.----- sae SROs pe veees says goes seses —e 
~ Value of Vessels lost, including outfits .....Eighteen ctanacacoar eels 
SPNOOIOL High: 10st... 2sdiism sce pear sieeine yor tr tees en eRe tn rs ee spree. 
Bitiamber of Lives lost..----«----+++er teres tess er et eneee esses cae 


* Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xe. per 
me. owt .......-- Ry noe roar Ga ta moe ny 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc., 
TS ee ene er eee puece eee oe One dollar 
_ Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .. Nothing 
_. Total yalue of Mackerel do..---------- Snes esse 


3178 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Hight dollars per Bbl. 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel................ None received 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
One hundred & fifty dolls per season 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

MOS aisles 2.0.5 coon sabes eee ome cee seme water Five Hundred dollars 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring .............--- Nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Twenty five Hundred dollars annually 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs.......... Two thousand dolls. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

| Grand & Western Banks 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel . . Not acquainted 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ............. Nothing 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... Nothing 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 

fisheries. 

But very little change in location on American Shores. A grand 
change made in mode of taking Mackerel, being: from hook & line, to. 
purse seining, largely increasing expense The scarcity and poor quality 
of Mackerel in British waters. has induced parties fishing there, to 
transfer their fleet to our own shore fishing. And it is not uncommon 
to see English vessels on this coast engaged in fishing with modern 
appliances, being found more profitable than their own Coast fishing 
and we have sold several cargo’s of cured fish the past two years to go 
to Halifax N.S. ' 

: V. DOANE Jz & CO. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31 day of May 1877. 

(Seal.) A. F. HOWARD 

Notary Publie. 
No. 109. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of ©. 
Morris Tredick have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
five years, at Portsmouth N H and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 
NO. 0£ (Vessels employed .cnsd oct ouceea wan wocceeeee ee Fifteen 

WING OF EPIDS MMAUG: cdouc eon qe coe ters Meee OeL eeeae a es Sixty 
1875 1876 
No: of Trips ‘to: Bay St: Lawrences... 422. Seas sds eeepc it 1 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. .none, but Cod fish 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 


ing Magdalene Islands..... . ab aepbae mend hate ole wel ee seme ee none 
Average value of Vessels each..............- Three thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c....- Twelve hundred dollars 
AVOLarG Value Of INshPance cs... <c c2sus ice cet caainc Uoeeee mete 9% 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Thirty five dollars 
Average value of Commissions, &c..... one hundred and fifty dollars 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 


- Twenty thousand dollars 
Number of Vessels lost 2 


eee ereseeoaneese wee re eee mw eee eee ener ee rere em 


Value of Vessels lost, including outfits........Seven thousand dollars | 


Value of Fish lost 


ieee | 


1 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3179 


Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per cwt, 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
| bbl] .......--.2.--.-006- Rasen Sues ti cansieietaeiee es - two dollars. 
| “fPotal value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....none 
| |e otal value of Mackerel do... .........ccccccccccce jaseuepees te none 
/ Average market value of American Shore Mackerel..... $16. $12, 88. 
_ Average market value of Bay Mackerel................. $12. 88. 86. 


_ Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 

| ae oe: Two hundred & fifty dollars 
| | Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
| ue Six hundred dollars yearly 
_| ~Amount paid to British fishermen fer } 
HOPPING ei sace eae su oe sors toc Three thousand dollars yearly 
_ ‘Amount paid to British fishermen as | 
. wages 
_| Amount paid in British ports for re. | 
pairs A 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

La Have, Grand & Western Bank 


| Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel ' 

Cape May to Bay St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ..........-.... nothing 
' ‘Aetual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken...... --.-- nothing 


a Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
| fisheries 

Within last three years have not had any vessels engaged in Fishing 
in British Waters either for Cod or Mackerel. The Mackerel fishing 
‘being done on the Coast of the United States, and the Cod fishing on 
‘Grand La Have and Western Banks, vessels resorting to British Wa- 
ters only for Bait and ice. The Gulf of St. Lawrence fishing of no ac- 


count. ; 

C. MORRIS TREDICK. 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 19th day of May 1877, 
(Seal.) . A. F. HOWARD 


Notary Public. 


No. 110. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, James Frye have been en- 
gaged in the fishing business, for the past twenty seven years, at North 
‘Haven & Camden, Me. and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 


has been in effect, my vessels have been employed as follows : 
Five (5) 13 men each 


No. of Vessels employed....-.-.---++-+-+-2+++ . 
0G, .Of, TrpsSMaAde,-. -o0+-.2eseerseoe-es four trips yearly, each vessel 
“No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.......----+---eseresteteee: none 
‘No. of ‘Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence....-.--++-- +-hone 

| °No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
pe! tig Magdatene Islands....-------+---+++--ersreseccree sce: rr 
Average value of Vessels each ..-.----++--+--: cee Fo aanpedeteat 
| Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Wc...--- #2000 yearly - — 
4 3 Average value of Insurance. ae Botares 7 Be ae ener am : : A ai a 
AN i , Jrews’ time, viz. eis 
_ Average value of Captains’ and Crews 5 Vika Se eae 


| - “Average value of Commissions, &C..---+--++++-+-*- . 
| “Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &e., for curing and packing, 


2° ‘including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors anc 


3180 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Number of Vessels lost 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
OW oa ee od eit ore Me Sas ea tas nie dee wiatatd ats a ninraa as Grniaictes wrels 76 cts 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, ay » per 
DU lee ono oh sie eae ee aera te ene a tea aarenre ees 2.00 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....none 


Total value Of Mackerel G0... : aa teers cio awtiiwm wiv en's swe cone none 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........ 16. 12—8 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.......-.--- $200 

‘Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
PCS eae ons se cus a noe eam aot Selo ealets ateraine oueiew ae Setar hoe ee none 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring..........-.--.-.... none 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand & Georges Bank 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Mt Desert 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken..... -...-nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
We have sent no fishermen to the Dominion Waters for the past five 
years for the following reasons namely: the fish have been of poor 
quality & scarce and in all that have fished there from this vicinity none 
have paid their expenses Mackerel on the American shore are plenty 
and of good quality but the expenses are so high in catching them that 
we do not consider them worth anything in the water before taken— 
JAMES FRYE 
STATE OF MAINE 


KKNOX Sss— 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this second day of June 1877 
(Seal.) J. F. STETSON 


Notary Public 
No: Tt. 


This is to Certify, That the undersigned Geo. Tolman have beer en- 
gaged in the fishing business, for the past twelve years, at Deer Isle, 
Maine, and that since the W ashington Treaty, so called, has been in 
effect, ‘our vessels have been employed as follows: viz—since 1866 


No. of Vessels employed.......... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 
Vo aS 12 108 a 

INO clk CIDA MA secre see x orale dues 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 
20 18 201816 8 §$§ 4 12 16 18 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence... .66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 
16 17°30 13°93 67 6 3:4... hale 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence: ovi.9 esse 28800 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
che: Magdalene Telandau es. .dv xc cues nce eee es er 
Average value of Vessels: each. oc. ece.s5 ck vocccoc cedudonsouet $5000. 


h it 


H 


- 


i 
ia 
| 


| 


: 
i 


{ 


{ 
} 


i 
im 


' 
{ 


{ 
f 
| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3181 


Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, Ge... 2.2.2.0... 2700 each yearly 
Average value of Insurance..................... 10°% vessel & outfits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ fime, viz., wages per mo...&38 
Average value of Commissions, Ne................... eae #150. 


Mr@l \.GSBGISHORD....0% Soc ccc ee see mc aed Ate ree eRge ere 4 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits............2....... $25,000,00 
Value of Fish lost it ei 
Me DOE OF LAVCS1OS8b 22 sos lana er een tee Ueber en eons 17 
Total valae of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt 
. 15 cts 
apse value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Demin et Rains 2 cco tae PEP aed ora En ena 2.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.. Nothing 
Total value of Mackerel do.............. . hiveG MOR Ra Sao aals Nothing 


No. ls No.2s No. 36 
$18. 812. 6s. 
Nol No.Zs No. 38 


Average market valueof American Shore Mackerel. . 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel........... tet : ‘ 
’ 813. 83, St. 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year........ $250. 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
#2500 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring...... ...- 81000. one year 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages. . $5000.00 from 1866 to 1872 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs........ ....-.---.- #900. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand. Western. La Have. Georges Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel a 
Cape May to Gulf St. Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..-... Sisson, Ss Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken.......--. Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries : 

The mode of fishing has entirely changed since I commenced the busi- 
ness. Trawls have taken the place of hand lines. and there is hardly a 
vessel that is fitted with lines for mackerel. in fact all the vessels from 
this place use Seines. I have lost thousands of dollars in sending ves- 


| sels to Bay of St. Lawrence. I said in 1873 I would never send another 


' 


4 - (Seal.) 


es This is to certify, th 
_ Willard Portland, Maine have been e 


vessel to the Bay for fish. if I wished too I could not get a crew to go 
there. we tried-the Bay fishing to long for our own Interest, but every 
spring we went in again, on the promises made the fall before—Mack- 
erel are so plenty on this shore, and so easily taken. hat the Bay Mack. 
erel for the last few years have not been worth going there for 
= GEO. TOLMAN 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this first day of June Siz 


STATE OF MAINE 
Coun 1OCcK : 
Co TY OF HANcOo C. A. SPOFFORD 


Public N olary 
wfc os 


at the undersigned, composing the firm of EG 
ngaged in the fishing business fur 


3182. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the past Twenty-one (21) years, at Portland: Me. and that since the 
Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been 
employed as follows: e 


No. of Vessels employed’. .-......:6..5 MASEL Frat We a Rae uray gets ae Six 
No.of Trips: made. io. cic 2b decane ce tw cese .... Average three trips’ 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrente. 2.206 co Sess soni one 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .......... 150 Bbls 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

Macdalene Istands: .5:5 coe cae ee waemee ss one na aba aa erat None 
Average value of Vessels each........-.2- Forty five hundred Dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........ One thousand Dollars 
Average valine Of INSULAnes .3+555.224-aenec ort eat ea ose Nine per Cent 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 


Thirty Dollars per Month per Man — 


Average value of Commissions, &¢....... Three hundred fifty Dollars 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &¢c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 


INDINDER- Of. VeOSSCIS LOSU-ox-c0-4.0 ie acanen PAP ER Ee Em Sard yg he RE aS Two 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits......... Ten thousand Dollars 
Value of Fish lost ‘ 

ING ber Of ln Ves TORE. oo 24 cos. c sien dee excel e hae be oe ieee None 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt 
Sixty cts per hundred 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..None 
Total value of Mackerel dO. ss cuehabebalnppedliasrictelte bara sle None 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerels 
$16—for ones—$12—for twoes—$8—for threes 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
$10—for ones $7—for twoes $5—for threes 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Five hundred Dollars 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring : 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western & Grand Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


Bay St Lawrence & Madeline Island 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ............ Nothing 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken ....-... .. Nothing 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries. 

Have abandoned the idea of sending My Vessels any longer to the 
Bay of St. Lawrence, and shall never send another Vessel to the Bay, 
as the whole business has been a failure as far as My Vessels are con- 
cerned. ‘The Mackeral being very scarce there, and very hard to dis- 
pose of them when got, being so poor in quality. 

EG WILLARD 


STATE OF MAINE 
CUMBERLAND Co. gs. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 21st day of May 1877. 
(Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH 


| 
| 
Notary Public. — 


i aE 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3183 


No, 113. 


_ This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Jordan 
& Blake have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 30 years, 
at Portland Maine and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


muoy.of Veasels employed... . cc cccncscccacs CS ee = 40 
= No. of Trips made......... Stee a aaighynitawe Miataaiakesuee faye 8 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.......... 0 0 1 0 oO 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.......... : 135 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands. ...... ba seein Rekeisisoareccareleaes of Magdelenes 
mvyerapo valuoof Vessels GACDs 5:5 s.0c 5a cceesbeclenscnveece B4000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &............. a oe Poa: $1500 
SVGIAGCO VAING OF LUSULADCE sei acigaaavuc eisias sor caaueseess 9 Per ct 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.... $35 


| Average value of Commissions, &c.......-.... ae ree $100 each vessel 
| Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 


packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor 

ASIN SONG pit Bees al oct 5: so Gib) Oia cus is peswEs SS bee ealere ene #25, 000 
Number of Vessels lost 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost. 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. 

per cwt. 
‘Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, 

&e., per bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. None 


= Total value of Mackerel do................ Fisesastakehinse sg 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel....-.. $16 $12 5 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel..........-.-...-- S1L 87 85 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year...-...-.- 8225 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap- 
DOS ssc een acs SARA ee DER ne cel eca ouee cee we eE Mees 3100 yearly 


‘Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
‘Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish.....-...--+- Jefirys 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
; on American Shores 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking....--.------- Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken......----- Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American tish- 
eries 
We have formerly had vessels engaged in the Bay of St Laurence 
fisheries for Mackerel but finding it improfitable the vessels not paying 


- their bills we have entirely withdrawn our Vessels from the Bay fish- 


eries and confine them to our own shores for Mackerel and the Ocean 


Banks for fish. The British shore fisheries are worthless to us. 


LEVI C. BLAKE 
_ STATE oF MAINE, 
CUMBERLAND Co. SS ae 
_ Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 29 day of May 157% 
~ Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH 
=" Notary Public. 


3184 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. 114. | : | 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Lewis 
Whitten & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past’ 
years, at Portland Maine and that since the Washington Treaty,so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed 
1871 | 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 =) shall send 
— none in 
17 in Bay (Bi in Bay {8in Bay 7in Bay 6in Bay 3in Bay{ Bay this 
5onshore ) 8 on shore j 8 onshore 1lonshore l5onshore 14onshore) year 1877 


No,0f ‘Trips Mads <:. .<.iv sa sa ere de sindelnis sia ermine een ect Cannot say 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 

1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 


3189 Bbls. 1045 Bbls. 1474 Bbls. 1552 Bbls. 474 Bbl. 301° Bbls. 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands 
Average value of Vessels each..........-..--.- Five thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..Six hundred dollars each trip 
Average value of Insurance, 
About two hundred dollars for the fishing season 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo., J 
Thirty-five dollars 
Average value of Commissions, &¢ ......-... Two hundred fifty dollars 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore, 
Twenty five thousand dollars 


Numberiot. Vessels: losti<225 4.22282 scuaweuas vesew meee eee ee Five 
Value of Vessels lost, ineluding outfits... .. Twenty five thousand dollars 
Value Of Wish O86. oct cca ocean te eeu owe eee No knowledge 
Nombor Of Lives-loat 22.3% 35 oo. cue hence Ooeuleeaw ens vee booed Nineteen 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 

OCW Siisiatrn a ooeira bls eR eal t a wept ean eee ie not more than ove dollar 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per _ 

Obra) ch cus acces. .-» Not more than two dollars per barrel 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores, 

Cannot say 


Total value of Mackerel do. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 


1871 1872 1873 
No.1 — No.2— 1s 2s Is 2 
$173—8113 $17 i4—$12 $234—$13 
1874 1875 1876 
Is 28 is, 23 sock 2 3 
$13—89 | $29—$16—8$9 | 3153—$S8—$6 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel di 
1871 1872 1873 | 
Nols—No2] 1s 2s] 1s—2s 
$154—$10 | $16—$11 | $14—$12 
1874 1875 1876 
Is 2 1s 28 oe ee 
$12—$8 | $18—8134 | $14—$63—$54 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ] 
Two hundred fifty dollars 


a 


ee - 


| AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sikb 


peereee amount paid in aaa eee for bait, ice, and various sup- 
plies. .....---- ...+25-.--0e. ut One thousand dollars per ; 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring alae 
_ Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
_ Amount paid in British ports for repairs 

About Fifteen hundred dollars 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

|; Grand Banks—Western Banks & Georges 
_ Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
From Cape Henry to Bay of St Lawrence 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ........... Nothing 
__ Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken......... Nothing 
_ Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 
- eries 


We have given the mackerel fishery in the Bay of St. Lawrence a fair 
_ trial and from the experience of the past three years we are fully satis- 
| fied that it would prove ruinous to pursue it longer consequently we 
shall not send a vessel there this present season—The mckl. caught in 
|. the Bay during the few past vears have been very poor quality—and 
| also very scarce. There are now in this market two trips of Bay mekl. 
' caught and packed last fall that cannot be sold on account of the poor 
_-- quality of the fish—Nearly all the mckl. are now caught in seines—A 
few seasons ago we thought that seining might prove profitable in the 
_- Bay St. Lawrence—and fitted a vessel—but on arriving they found the 
| bottom so rough—that they could not use the seine without a great 
| deal of risk of loosing it—(and it cost one thonsand dollars) so they 
| abandoned the voyage and returned home without any mackerel—so 
_ that now all of our mckl. fleet will fish in American waters—One En- 
|e glish vessel has fitted here with a seine to fish in our waters. 
| T. OC. LEWIS 
O. B. WHITTEN 
| WM. H. WILLARD. 
_ SPATE OF MAINE . 
| ‘CUMBERLAND Co. a 
| ‘Sworn and.subscribed before me, this 23rd day of May, 1877. 
(Seal.) . LEWIS B. SMITH 
| Notary Public. 
| No. 115. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Charles 
A. Dyer have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Ten years 
at Portland, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in 
effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


HH No. of Vessels employed... .....----0-- esses ce eeet crt ctt: - sees Fifty 
} No. of Trips made .........-.-- Ag rece Nee ray Eee Four Yearly 
| No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence..-....----++-2seeee > ons tse None 
i No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. .-. ..-.+++++. — 
| No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
ii | Magdalen’ Islands.........-.ee-ceecss ese sseeesseceseser sed on 


Average value of Vessels each i 7 ; : 
Five large Class Valued at 5000 Each 45 1000 each 
ft Average value of outfit, Salt, Bait, INGO Sheets aise mibie One thousand each 

| Average value of Insurance..-.------ ase cca srattes 


| Average value 6f Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., Wages per mo. e 
: Thirty Five 


200 F 


3186 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


- Average value of Commissions, &c....One hundred dollars each yearly 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore, 
Thirty thousand 


Nuauther Of V GSkele lOGbivecocooncde sco tan he eee cee alee One 
Value of Vessels lost including outfits. ........-....... Five Thousand 
Waliierdt .Eislt LOS fis ci.ts6 0 ci oaos a ti acetel Sect ee esac a esals damiahit None 
Nomber of Lives, lost....1en< o1s5 cases oocter is wecerne a eete = oo oC 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per | 
OR Garces ke eae ain ere en me werent sale ie poeta siseramas One dollar 
Total value of Mackerel taken before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
ge | 1) Peper ere Be gettin ar sSgiek Sarath ge cent enmeaie Bienen arene = Two dollars | 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... .none 
Total value of Mackerel 06.2402 oc sscse 2 en See ee ...-none 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel......-.... 16$ 12—8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel................. ..-- 12—8—6 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year. .........--.250 | 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- | 
HOS’ feiidics coe wt Sneak ets ge  e aN  aramere ewe kee anes aia None | 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring....One Thousand dollars 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages................ Unknown 
Amount paid to British ports for repairs..........-.....--0.. Nothing 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Bank Grand Georges 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


American Shore Bay St Lawrence | 
Actual value of Fish in the water before taking.............. Nothing | 
sé 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken....... ... 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- | 


eries : 
My Vessels are Mostly Employed in Mackerel Fisheries I send no 
Vessel in English Waters for the reason that the fish are so inferior to 


American Mackerel that Vessels cannot pay their outfit Bills to catch | 


+ 


them My Vessels are Mostly engaged in seineing and netting Mack- 
erel in American Waters I cannot find any one who is willing to fit a 
Mackerel Catcher for Bay of St Lawrence Vessels that have been their 
have fell in debt largely I paid an assessment of 232% on 3, of a Sch* 
this Year on two Years fishing in English Waters 1874 and 1875 


CHAS A DYER 

STATE OF MAINE 

CUMBERLAND Co. 8. 8. } | 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 25th day of May 1877 

(Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH | 

Notary Public. | 

No. 116. | 

| 


This is to certify, That the undersigned W.S. Jordan & Co. have | 
been engaged in the fishing business, for the past thirty three years, « 
at Portland Me, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has | 
been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 
No. of Vessels employed............ Twelve, averaging eight men each | 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence ; 
Average two each year, one only in = | 


* This Sch was in the employ of C & H Trefethen of Portland 


: 


INO. OF DMDS MAKG: 22.6 Orc sss cerca wea gamcweeeen Four trips each yearly | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8187 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
Thirteen hundred and fifty in five y 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of ihore aes incladiag 
Magdalene Islands 


Average value of Vessels each..............0......0..0-., $2000.00 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c............. 0 $800.00 
Average value of Insurance......... ..............05..... 9% 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 830.00 
Average value of Commissions, &c ............ $120.00 to each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Sn DOT OL V CRNOIS: 1OSG o55, oan oe vox a dace gases bk bk oe ekce 


Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 

} a value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.. None. 

otal value of Mackerel do 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
16% for 1s 12% for 2s 88 for 3s 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel 11% for 1s 7% for-2s 58 for 3s 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..... -. $200.00 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and vari- 

WES GOUINIOR 65 oa adic haw cee oe ave kav ess rea eae $200.00 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages Nothing. 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs Nothing. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish.... Western Banks. 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel Coast from Cape 
May to Gulf of St. Lawrence 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking............ Nothing. 


| Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken... .. .---- Nothing. 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


Owing to the unprofitable returns from the bay of St Lawrence by 
the vessels sent there that branch of the business has been abandoned 
Vessels fitted by our house have not paid their bills, consequently 
our vessels are confined to our own shores for Mackerel and the Ocean 
Banks for fish. British waters are not used by our vessels except as 


harbors for shel d when necessity compels supplies 
vegan ante . WINTHROP 8S. JORDAN 


STATE OF MAINE, } 
CUMBERLAND Co. ss. 


8 ibed to before me, this 29 day of May, 1877 
re eoaL) pe LEWIS B. SMITH 


Notary Public. 


No. 117. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Geo 
Trefethen & Co have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Twenty one years, at Portland, Maine and that since the W ea pe 
‘Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 


: follows : 


i 


3188 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

No. of Vessels employed ...... 2.02200 ce etd eet dewccv tae 1 denis Six 
Wow of Trips Made... 22 cnc cus cee ee ee rene eee Three, to, four — 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.....--.- ...-One and occasionly two 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
One, to three hundred per Vessels 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalene Islands. ..........---+-.-e¢sese- Not more than one in ten 
Average value of Vessels each........-...-..--- four thousand dollars 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c......... Seven hundred dollars 


Average value of Insurance 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
Capt 608 Crew 30% 
Average value of Commissions, &e. 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Nothing as we do not cure our fish, but pay one twelveth for curing dry 
fish and about 18 per Brl for Mackerel 


Number:of Vessels 10st. 22.050 55 Sonn Shea ecewn se eticwwin decane. Gl two 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.......... Nine thousand dollars 
WAIUGLOL DIN NORD io tote oak or cea cece Sia pac two thousand dollars 
Number of Lives lost..........-... elated ce el ot EEA RN oes Eleven 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per cwt. 
do not consider fish of any, or at least of very little value when taken 
from the water 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Wil arcs eats soe as ce cele mea OS med ee pee ae tae the same as above 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores...... none 
Total value of Mackerel do. .. .donot consider fish swimming of any value 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
12 to 158 No 1—7 to 8 for No 2—and 5 to 63 No 3 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
No1—10%$ No2—7% No3—58 
- Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
two hundred dollars ° 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
fifty dollars per vessel per annam 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring..........-..--. nothing, — 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 


Twenty five hundred dollars per year 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Bank and Quero Bank | 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Gulf of St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking........... ae weil none | 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......--. ----none | 


' 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American | 


fisheries . 
Within the last few years the mode of taken Mackerel has change en- | 


tirely. from taken them by the Hook to seining, or netting, and for our | 
shore fishing it has become useless to send a vessel without a sein, — 
while in the Gulf of St Lawrence. our fisherman have been unable to use| — 


them to any profit. owing to the rocky Nature of the bottom, and the 
large quantities of small Herring. that fill the meshes of the seine, the: 


Mackerel are inferior to those taken on our own Shore, for these causes, | 
we have been gradully withdrawing from the Gulf of St Lawrence) © 


| 


i ~ 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMISSION. 3189 
fisheries, last year sending only one vessel, and this year shall not send 


any. 
GEORGE TREFETHEN 
THOMAS 8. JACK 
STATE OF MAINE, 
CUMBERLAND Co. ss } 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 31st day of May 1877 
(Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH 
Notary Public. 
No. 118. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of J. W. 
Sawyer & Co, have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Thirty years, at Portland Me and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


Peel, V GROIN CIN DIOVOR oii u05515 <sins'ss nies ee za) eee eeeiees Fifteen (15) 
MOR EPID SNNOO s sr0 x. esa on <a rase ders stared hoes Two each Vessel yearly 

1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.......... 1 8 5 2 


1 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .250. 975. 1000, 200—150 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands 
Mostly Caught at Magdalene Isls 


Average value of Vessels each ................ yp ene ey erie $5000. 
_ Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c....... 3000 yearly each Vessel 
Average value of Insurance.....- Pe: 9 per cent on Vessel & Outfits 


_ Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo.. $40. 


Average value of Commissions, &¢ ...... 2.2.2.0... e ee cece ee es 175. 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 

including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
1000. Yearly 


BEEN DOT Of V OSSEIS: LOSE s sctes xn oases Se sexs Two at Bay St Lawrence 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits... Seventeen ($17000.) Thousand 
Welue of Fish-lost,. ................ ee sinter $2000 in mackerel 
MDOP OF 1NVEN IONE ca soca cast vs beac en tee ene sss taes tenes none 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xc. hdl 

Ch. iv 


Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 


Total vaiue of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.. None 
Total value of Mackerel do.....-..-.---- +--+ ---++2+-++e5> wes vs 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel ...--. 316. 10. & 8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel......--------++--+- $11.8 &6 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..-. - ----+ $250 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for ae 
- Location American vessels for Fish 

prope. Seanented by Western & Grand Banks 


‘Loca cati d by American vessels for Mackerel 
z <o ebepiai Cape May to Bay St Lawrence 


“Actual value of Fish in the water before taken ....+----+++- - Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken --. ------ 


A 


3190 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries Our Vessels have been codfishing on the Banks and macker- 
eling mosty off our own shore. The Bay of St Lawrence fishing has 
constantly grown poorer our Vessels have not paid their expenses. 
Shall send none there this Season. The shore mackerel are better and 
bring a higher price. We use Seines where we formaley used hooks & 
lines. The Codfish are taken many miles from any Shore. and within 
No National Jurisdiction 
J W. SAWYER 


D L FERNALD 
ROBT. H. SAWYER 
STATE OF MAINE. 
CUMBERLAND Co. SS. 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 21st day of May 1877. 
(Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH 
Notary Public. 


No. 119. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Thomes— 
Chase and Co have beer engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Twenty Eight years, at Portland Me and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have beeen employed 
as follows: 


NG, OL Vessels employed ii. snc Sa ses cee wee sre asia) S eeiatnicce 65s Twenty 
No. of Trips made. 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence. fe 2 aes ee ee Re aes 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
. 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
1200 600 600 350 200 66 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within three miles of shore, not in- 
cluding Magdalen Islands 
most caught in round Magdalene Islands 
Average value of Vessels each.............-eeees. Fifty-five Hundred 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &¢ 
Fifteen to Twenty hundred yearly 


Average value of Insurance ..<5 622 dos canes os ons ones sncnes 9% 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo....$35 
Averago:value of Commissions, &6.:. ss j0sisess\c<e'se ose esee sateisce $200 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors, and labor on shore 
Twenty Thousand Dollars 


Nomber of Vésaels: lostccS- cs osiose ete cn he eee ene eee eosee none 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.:.......-....----2.00- nothing 
V MING Of Fish 1O8b. 44s oocckeac ca veces Wek dd OU ae ee none 
NEMDEM OL Lives 1h6ts25.0. ove os cc kee Sere ce ee ee ed none 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt 
75¢ 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, a per 


DBs Niece cose ieee Siuiai ere (whdl waited elare Siete avaaracae eMamaaaate 2.00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .... none 
Lotal value: Of Mackerel G0 csc cca vo sece Cocese canes ons dae do 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel. ..$16$12$8 per Bbl 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel........... $11 $8 & $6 per Bil 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen Per year. .....sereee 275 


= 
t . é 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 319) 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup. 
plies........-. Se Cniainie seis Mel aia elun: Pmieate'e sia7- 4's ae ea ele #150 yearly 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring eas 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 


: Bay of Fundy La Have & Grand Bank 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel ; 


Cape May to Bay St. Lawre 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before aig er me sagmactcre tas 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken........... nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries. 

The Bay St Lawrence Fishing has been fallen off with me for the last 
seven or eight years, so that it has got to be an impossibility for my 
vessels to pay their expenses fishing in their waters for Mackerel. 
Shall send no more vessels to the Bay of St Lawrence, 

C D THOMES 
W. H. CHASE 
STATE OF MAINE, 
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SS, 


Sworn and subscribed before me this 23rd day of May 1877, 
(Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH 
Notary Public 


No. 120. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of E. H 
Chase have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 20 yeara, 
at Portland & Boothbay and that since the Washington Treaty, so 
called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


moO; 'OF Vessels GMplOVed -. o. x.6225 acces cc seee cone Fas Thirty-five 
POF CTIDR NON... 6656 ss4 05505 ss 5s Four to six to each vessel yearly 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 

7 5 4 2 none 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 
1255 1000 870 360 none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inclad. 
ing Magdalene Islands 
Most Caught in around the Magdalene Islands 


| Average value of Vessels each.......------++-+++++++ Rete weak $6500 
_. Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..-..-- +--+. 6 eee eee eee 3000 
Average value of Insurance .....----------- se eeeeeeee eee e tees 996 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. $50 
Average value of Commissions, &C...-.----+-+-+-++> 200 Each vessel 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing aad packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors aud labor on shore. . 340.000 


Number of Vessels lost ..-.-..----- saeteeeneeetteceee seater pe 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits.... ..---- --++e+s--s55 Phe 
- Value of Fish lost ae 


| Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, arr} 


| RE 5 or nvel ane ee a be 8 Blea s oe. areeee ee ee 


3192 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. ....none 
Total value of Mackerel G0... co wc.ce ew setae ls ve evs heen none 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel..... . $16. $12. $8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel...............---- $11 $8 $6 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year........... $270 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
Wh PUIG os cc oe oan henep sis neiee caer cas One Hundred each vessel 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring........ $6000 each year 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages................. 200 year 
Amount paid in British ports for T6pairs:< veda os sass eens aes none 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Bay Fundy & Cape May 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
to Bay St Lawrence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking...........-.. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.........- nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
I shall not send any more vessels in British waters fishing; It has 
been a failure with me. for the last four years the vessels have not paid 
their expenses. The fish or mackerel. caught ther last year by my ves- 
sels are still on my hands; I have been unable to sell them at any price 
they being such poor Quality the dealers will not take them when they 
can get our shore mackerel. 
E. H. CHASE 


STATE OF MAINE 
CUMBERLAND Co. Ss § 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 23rd day of May 1877. 
(Seal.) LEWIS B. SMITH 
Notary Public. 
No. 121. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of C & 
H Trefethen have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Six 
years, at Portland Maine and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, 
has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. Gf Vessels employed o29 245 o5., Pies eee estes. enue Sees Twenty 
No. of Trips made. ......... One hundred pr year for all of the vessels 
Nov of Trips to Bay St. Lawrene x. 4.<6.4-00ss ae cee eae Nine since 1871 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
7 Fourteen hundred seventy eight 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalene: Islands'27 04% fa0 2a dn cates oes ne geen ee None 
Average value of Vessels each ..............-- Three thousand dollars 
Average value of outfits, Salt, Bait, &e ......... Eight hundred “ 
Average value of Insurance.............. Twenty two hundred dollars 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
Thirty dollars 
Average value of Commissions, &e. 
Three per cent on net stock to Capts of. vessels 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 


. Twenty five thousand dollars 
NaUDGR OF Vessels lost issues wv cas oat ecrd o aoenatas as ae One 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3198 
Number of Lives lost pease Mente wieaie ss eaabe nt so cote elon eens Fifteen 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per ewt 

| On doll 
| Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., oie 
BME Shee pt siae ries wiclig Srna ho ea des cence ek. wExc A .+-+-Two dollars 


otal value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
Total value of Mackerel do. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........Ten dollars 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.......-......... Eight dollars 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
; Two hundred & seventy dollars 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
One hundred and fifty dollars pr year for each vessell 
Amount paid to British fishermen ‘for herring 
Two hundred dollars pr year 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages..Thirty thousand since 187} 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Three hundred dollars since 1871 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western & Quereau Bank & Gulf of St Lawrence 
- Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel : 
Coast of the United States & Gulf of St Lawrence 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 

_ Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... Nothing 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


We have not had any vessels engaged in mackerell fishing in British 
waters the past year. we consider that branch of fishing a failure as 
far as the Gulf of St Lawrence is concerned our mackerell fishing is all 
done on the coast of the United States those engaged in codfishing go 
mostly to Western & Quereau Banks and occasionally to Gulf of St 
Lawrence, but the last named fishing ground has prooved almost a fail- 


_ ure the past year 
C & H. TREFETHEN 


STATE OF MAINE ! 
CUMBERLAND Co. 8s 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 26th dav of May 1877 
LEWIS B. SMITH 
Notary Public. 


No. 122. 


| This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Chase 
& Cushing this Company have been engaged in the tishing business for 
_the past thirty five years, at Portland Me and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 


_ follows: : 
. Twelve 

| No. of Vessels employed ..... ee eee rena 
| aevo. i ear eraae Suet aimed Mis iowe ss Everag three 
No. of trips made 1872. 1873 1874 1875 . 1876 

i : ence... 4 2 ~ a _ 
. No. of trips to Bay St. Lawr 1872 1873. 1874 «18751876 
| * No; m Bay 
PB . No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Ba; an 425-360 230 180 


not inclading 
None 


ecevenereeseeeese® 
ecoecceenereeat eo? 
oi Sae ao 187 01s @ 


3194 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Average value of vessels each ......-- +--+ e2+ 20+ eee ee eee ee eee 45,00 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c. ...1000 Bay trips 600 Shore Trips 
Average value of Insurance 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo... . $30 
Average value of Commissions, &c. ......-.---2 +--+ sees ene eee - $350 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
20.00 
Number of Vessels lost 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
OWhoiasaacice soe secs eerste Ea iatd ee Wisin ae vie be eee 60 cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
Total value of Mackerel do. 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel ...... 1 ia <o 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel .............-.. 10. 1. <0 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year ......-..... 200 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking...........-.. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

Senes are Moslley yousd for Shore fishing for Mackerling on the Cost 
of New England We Have No Seains in youse in inglish Watters the 
fishing for Mackerling in Bay Stlorece & Shelore Bay We Have 
Abandend as a Lusing Buesnes 

M M CHASE 


EMERY CUSHING 
STATE OF MAINE, 
CUMBERLAND, Ss } 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 21st day of May 1877. 
LEWIS B. SMITH 
Notary Public. 


No. 123. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, William Maddocks have 
been engaged in the fishing business for the past Sixty-Two years, at 
Southport. Me, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has 
been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : 


No. of Vessels employed..............-- sctigew ets See ES ee ee Ten (10) 

NGcOl Drips Maden. os csvus cussed eee: ewe tins cise Sia Cae Three 
1874 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... Kin siaieie ss 1 only in five years. 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence............. none. 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
DEA SieaeiW ke ease aye <o taw tad 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 5195 
Average value of Vessels each.......... ccc ccc cc ccc cce sce £5.500 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c.......0 0.0... eee eee 2.500 
Average value of Insurance...... 2.222... cece cece cee 9.0 per cent 


Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
NOONE ace cietrate ara tate a) cra: Geis dicate Sine Seesaw 50 cents per 100 lbs 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., 
POR Me era asaya ne sere mies tee ee ne nig E BGAN wen ea ek 1.50 per bbl. 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores.. nothing 

POUL VOING 01 MaCKGre) C0 6... iss cis act ensesemwanvewchaenaa 6“ 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........ .. 18. 12. 8. 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel............. 12. 8. 5. per bbI— 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year......... $200.00 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages......... $500.—per annam. 
| Amount paid in British ports for repairs..........-. $50 “ “ 


. Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish.... Western Banks 
'- Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Eastport. 


| Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..... eee nothing 
_ Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... 6 

| Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
| eries 

| I sent one vessel to Bay St. Lawrence in 1874—and she lost $500 on 


Previous to 1870 we fitted a large fleet for the Bay—but could not 
make it pay, and consider that fishing entirely worthless. The fish 
which our vessels bring are caught on Banks many miles from the ja- 


risdiction of any government a 
WM T MADDOCKS. 


STATE OF MAINE 
LINCOLN 8.8. 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty-Third day of May 


1877 G. B. KENNISTON 
(Seal.) ry " Notary Public. 


No. 124. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, Freeman Orne have been 
- engaged in the fishing business for the past Fifty years, at Southport, 
Maine and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in 

- effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 
INO.‘of Vessels omployed......-----+s-ssceecrssessseccees tee eR 


No. of Trips made .......-------+-+ +++: oo eeceseccesecens sense 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence....-.- 1 in 1874 got 100 bbls mackeral 


i ~ No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence.. 100°“ 


= 


3196 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within.3 miles of shore, not including 


Magdalene Islands ...... ..- ..ececcccecce ces cess ccesercosess none 
Average value of Vessels each........ Fee a nee east 6 een eee $5.000. 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..... Se RG Ns a RGAod $3.000 
Average value of Insurance... «2. ..--cecccesceccccsceccevccnces 9% 
Average valueof Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo... .$40— 
Average value of Commissions, NC ...... ccc .ece eee ceceenee- $200— 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and Jabor on shore. $15.000— 
IN EDIDCE OF V CSBCISNOSbs. cc ota s wc ounce asi wecn ces ot eek anicete we one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits..... Oye avai tae tein, sete aes $7.000— 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 
OW Smiale tae hg pate Cae Wineie ass Eerie ee toe tie epee ST Oe mare h ety 50.c— 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, i per 
DOYS tote cae foes owe cd. piace rn ee a OWA eon eee ey alemeta es. 1.50 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores Nothing 
otal VAlWG Gt SIAGKOTS! COCA... ss ea vewenea sere cecee ss scne sc 
Average market value of Ameriean Shore Mackerel..........18. 12. 5 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.................--.--l1. 7. 4 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.......-.. $200— 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DHOS. occ ee cee oe ee cuie nao ene eat ances Oe eaters ctahaes $500.— 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.....-..---.....--- $100.— 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs......-..... $400.00 per annum. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Banks & Orphan. 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Eastport. Me. 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... 6 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
We send no vessels to Bay fishing—It is abandoned so far as our- 
selves—are interested. 
Shore Mackerel bring one third more than bay and the catch, with 
seine is surer— 
Our vessels catch fish on banks with trawls, many miles from any na- 
tional jurisdiction—Our experience in Bay fishing has been ruinous— 
FREEMAN ORNE 


STATE OF MAINE 
LINCOLN 8.8. 
see and subscribed to before me, this Twenty. Third day of May 
i7— 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Public 
No. 125. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Moses 
KE. Peirce & Co—have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Forty years, at Boothbay, Me. and that since the Washington Treaty, 
So called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


iz , ae iit 


- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8197 
No. of Vessels employed 


, ereronet: OME LOT OAL, 5 w.s.a: we e)0-aieibd’a'e G09» ee'eadece be ccan Wier? Fifty 

MOWOL CTS BUG he cs 55 vss ace vais Selva bec oes k. average of Thres 
; 1872 1873 1874 1875 187 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence........., 6 ce "6 3 ; 


8 
1872 1873 1874 1875 187 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Law- oe ee cenit 


MPINGO in 0:5: 3:6'0)5'6n\siv'sik Seance Hes sind o wie ee ees 1200 800 1200 600 200 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands...... Did not fish in St. Le. but Modaline Islands 
Average value of Vessels each ............ 2. cece ee cence $5000.—each 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &¢................. $2000,—each 
Average walae of Insurance. . sacs. ce oacisnoncscedsciesctcs, % per cent 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
; $50.00 per mo. 


Average value of Commissions, &c..............0-..--.c00--. 250.00 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, in 
cluding expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .. .. 30,000 
TRIS DOE OF V.ORBGIS-1ORE os a. Seances cea pinks ae ecebu ea wevekbncnicc. Three. 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits...................... $25,000 


Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt 


75 cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., per 
WO eae ocaines skeua eeece Sieliaialaieretesialaie tiele teil ater iaieis ele telatee tates o &200 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... Nothing 
| IOGRE-VHING OF. BIACKOTOL 00s. 2. cae dav ckweas | vaevinx vcudinne's “ 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel... 16, 12—S8—per bbl. 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ..................... Ll. 6. 4 
| Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year............ #25 
. 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
#3.000 per annuum 


| Amount paid to British fishermen for herring... .. -#2.000 per annum 


| Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.......-... $500 “ «“ 
| Amount paid in British ports for repairs.......- ----.€500 “ « 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish.........-......- 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to St. Lawrence. 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking........-...-Nothing 


“ 


| Grand & Western Braddelle & Orphan Banks 
{ 
| 


Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries Ps 

_ Fishing business in my case has been changed from hand lining 
to trawling seining—Can send no vessels to Bay of St. Laurence profit- 
olly—business had so depreciated—Our vessels now fished on banks, 
without national jurisdiction. My Mackerel have been caught chiefly on 
our own shores—for the bay fishing has been an entire failure—I cannot 
ship a crew of good fishermen in this place to go to — rari 


STATE OF MAINE 


LINCOLN. 
| Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty-second day of May 
1877 ives 
G. B. KENNISTON 
ay , Notary Public. 


3198 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 126. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, gtephen G. Hodgdon have 
been engaged in the fishing business for the past Thirty (30) years, at 
Boothbay—Me—and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has 
been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


Nosof Vessels employed. ...2:. 2. 60404 as sees e Late aai CBee wee Six— 
NO OL Trips MAGE £22 <cs-- ici. 2s ain Ble eles a ee east eae Ne rare Three each 
No.of Tripsto.Bay St. Liaawrence.......22% <.<c40- nes 1876 sent one vessel 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .......... 80 bbls— 
o. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 

Masdalone: Isisids iiy.cuas os dha ees soe aes AO none— 
Average -value-of. Vessels GAG)... 6540565 acca endear aes $4000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c.......-... 2202s. eee $2.500— 
Average Valtio-of TisnTance,. sors sas. tks oe ee ewe cand 10 per cent. 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. . $40.00. 
Average value of Commissions, &c......-. pie vishaaly wiame aro ot $250.00. 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. .$40.000 


Number ol vessels lost ss s.0<: -a ei coaai se eee eee ee ae one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ..... pea aae eile BP ee $2.500 
Value of Fish lost 
Number Gf ives lost: cases cacreusceseeecoas ass eames eee tena none 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per bbl 
75 cents 
Bat value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, eve 
Nab Nemes er hae Oae dis See aa tea a eer eunow ule wean e em eneD 200 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..nothing 
Total value of Mackerel dos 2siic Assis ce wwewent ne sae caaieecins o = 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel....... 26; 2.12, :.-S, 

Average market value of Bay Mackerel .....--.. 11. 7. 5—per bbl— 

Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year......... $200.00 

Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DUG ccc atcs Hees oe nee es ver esl Rindeie Ea oe heels $600. per annum 

Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.... .-.. $250. per annum— 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western & Quero Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Bay St. Laurence 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking....... ecores nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .......... - 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
The Bay fishing is an entire failure in my experience. I sent one ves- 
sel 1876 and she sunk $800. getting only 80 bbls—Shall send no more 
—The fish are taken by my vessels on the banks named and far out of 
the jurisdiction of any government. Fish by trawls & senes. 
S. G. HODGDON 


STATE OF MAINE 
LINCOLN. 8.8. 
oe and subscribed to before me, this Twenty second day of May 
i 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Publie. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3199 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, Allen Lewis of Boothbay 
have been engaged in the fishing business for the past Fifty yearn, at 
Boothbay and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in 
effect, our vessels have been employed as follows - 


No. of Vessels employed. 


POSES CHDIOVOG is: suse oes xn Ge wstefoois feelers fifteen vesselsa— 

BOVOE ELIDS MANO steve ee Laer ny youre ie Bates Three trips each— 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... ete ae me 1SiS 1876 
< ‘ s ” 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
1000 1000 700 1.000 300 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, pot inelad- 


ing Magdalene Islands ...................... Did no fish in shore— 
Average value of Vessels each.... 2.2.2.2... 0c ccc cece ew ccee 84, 000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &.............. 00.08. #3, 000O— 
AMerage Calne of Insurance :. 2060.4 ox asks taser oee eh eae t 9 per cent— 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. .840.— 
Average value of Commissions, & ..................... ..--- 9225.00 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &e., for curing and packing, 


including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 


$25.000— 
amber. Of V.OSHOIS 1ORb 05 6 rite sais a aden os eda sb eaee ce vee verso nove 
Valuo-of Vessels lost, including OOthts . 5 os cs.00.05.004 s3e'e 00s ace 2s “ 
NUCL OR MISE JOBS rs'sis 4 4x0 ns side aS avin bos Se eae ne Se “ 
Number. of Lives lost .............. SPitaA shade sabia k Ge eee eae “ 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per 
OW eee sie Sa ine creasinie SAG SAGE ane Pe Hes MSE Sew SRS 70 cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, ey 
DDE ic itee serene Dee teitasaip tad Meensanlnesie alee agaes 2 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. . Nothing 
Total.Galne OF Mackerel GOs 6.2.22-5 x0 Sas dixie tae eesalcens cies “ 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 16. 12. Sper bll— 
- Average market value of Bay Mackerel..........-- ll. 7. Sper bil 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year..-....... $200.-— 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 


#2.500 per annum. 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 


- Amount paid to British fishermen as wages......-- $750 per annam— 


Amount paid in British ports for repairs...--.-.---- $100. per annum 


i fi ted by American vessels for Fish : 
POPE BUEN NE Grand Bank & Western. 


- Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


Cape May to Bay of St Laurence. 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ..-.----.-+- Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taking...,.--. deh 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
eries 
My method of doing fishing business has been totally changed within 


- ten year—We fish by trawls and seines— where we used formerly band 


; ; . ces—and men 
lines entirely—Our shore Mackerel bring much larger prices— : 
decline to Be shipped for the bay if they can get other work—Our Bank 


i. « . . 


3200 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


STATE OF MAINE. 
LINCOLN. SS. 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty second day of May 


1877 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON, 


Notary Public. 
No. 128. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, Albion P. Hodgdon have 
been engaged in the fishing business for the past Thirty five years, at 
Boothbay Me and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been 
in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


NO: Of VGSseIs GINDIOV Uk: 36450 ccc on racea wie cus nears <6 Five — 
No: of Drips Mage. s. .s5c226 Milagre seine ae ei ait erases Se kiates oe eae Three 


No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... 
2 3 2 2 2 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 


average trips 150 bbls each . 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught. within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 


ing Magdalene Islands................ area stan Sa dete arecere ates not any 
Average-value'ot Vessels each... i.e s ah sce er ewee ces nese $.5000. 
Average value‘of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c..........c00-eee eee: $2.500 
ANOPAve Value-OF INSUTANGG 25 ac cece ries Mass wceieae mae mere 9 per cent 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo- .$35.00 
Average valoe.of Commissions, &¢.- 2455.25 265226 keecewsecees $250.00 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and Jabor on shore. .$20.000 


Muniber ol V eseels 1080: .....5..5 saa a we ee et Loe tek Mnwee Peete one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outflts: 2.3 2. .2:f5224 ase += ese} $7.000 
Value of Fish lost...) .: 3.6 wives ccc. ee RENOU SHE Ge Ca eeuleereene $2.000 


Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt 


50 cents per 100 Ibs. 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 
POE DO esis saison saan ees oc wae mere mace oe wae ctels $1.50 per bbl 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .. nothing 
Tot -valueof Mackerel: 06.5. 26. ¢uxdaecanessnwanes cng cole see e “ 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........ 18. 12. 8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel.........11. 7— 5 per bbI— 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year... $200.00 per an. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
$500.00 per an.. 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages......-..- $250. per annum 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs...-....-...- $360. * (3% 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish.... Western Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Bay St. Laurece 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking...........--. nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken........... “ * 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
_The fishing basiness is become almost wholly changed. from hand- 
lines to Trawling and seines for mackeral. 


a 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3201 


Good men cannot be had for Bay fishin 
had for Bay g and allour fish are taken o 
area Smile janadiotion of any Government. All cae eali cent 
in e bay of St. Laurence for three years have not paid their billa; 
“ape tieriene Redcat \ paid their bills aad 


A P HODGDON 
STATE OF MAINE— 
’ LINCOLN 8.8. 
Gee and subscribed to before me, this twenty-second day of May 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON— 


Notary Public. 
‘No. 129. ee 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, Luther Maddocks bave been 
engaged in the fishing business for the past Fifteen years, at B vothbay 
Me and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect 
our vessels have been employed as follows : : 


NO: OF Wessels, CMIPlOVed 2: <6 20.3 cicwcea be cckcke su oeckeeisdd. Thirteen 
No. of Trips made 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence................ Nothing since 1872— 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence. .............. none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not in- 
clading: Magdalene Islandss..c. xe. cve ce cuc cece ss eer ‘s 

Average value of Vessels each . ............2.... poste area $5,000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c.................. #2.500 each 
Average value of Insurance .............. Scans atkwesle 9° per cent 
Average value of Captains’ aud Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo... .840 
Average value of Commissions, &c............ ...... Pee 


* Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore. 830 000 


Namber of Vessels: lost. csc20e sss daeenas sos icetarnaye Se Two (2) 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits...-.........:.. $7.000 each— 
Value of Fish lost 

IARI DONGLE DIVGN OS ce tect ds open alesse eee earls e ewes Fourteen 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per ewt. 
-—70 cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Mc. per 
BUR eh Sc rec uee nena ye screl Seles hems Rae emesis $200 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
’ Total value of Mackerel do......--.-0. ----++- eee ce eees ce teees pone 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel. 16, 12.5. per bbI— 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel....- Sere ll. 7—5 per bbI— 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
: 225—O0 per annom. 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
2.000 per anndm— 
#).000— “ 
suo0 “4 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring... -- 


| Amount paid to British fishermen as wages. -.--+---- eas 
i Amount paid in British ports for repalrs...--.-+ +++ $. 


| Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
‘ ; Grand, Western & Orpha Banka. 


. 9 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel ids 
° ‘ Cape May to Bay of St Lawrence 


| Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking eee ea wie nothing 
~ Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .....- x3 
201 F 


Pf 
3, 


‘ie 


3202 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

Our Vessels were formerly wholly engaged in the cod and mackerel 
fishery—but we were compelled to abandon the business & for five years 
have been wholly engaged in the Menhaden & Mackeral fishery on our 
own coast—The bay of St. Laurence fishery, proving, in my experience, 
a total failure and for that reason we have sent no vessels there for five 
years—& have taken no fish of any kind within three miles of the shore— 

STATE OF MAINE 

LINCOLN ss 

B LUTHER MADDOCKS. 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty second day of May 
1877— - 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Public. 


No. 130. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, Levi Reed, have been engaged 
in the fishing business for the past Forty years, at Boothbay, Me—and 
that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our ves- 
sels have been employed as follows: 


NO. Of Vessels “GIN PlOYed os. . 3520's soe teeewa wee on cus igre atoad oy Three 
INOsOf, (REINS MAGG 6x ok eae cane ioe sis atee wlal 2s ee eee Three 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence............. None within five years— 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawreneesdss.oscsecce None 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Ma sdalone: [Slands s.2 oes. cds canons a esicndaniet oe caste aie none 
Average value of Vessels Gach 200505 Sececatss eeesten aces $5500 each 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c............ ach: - $2.500 
Average value-of Tisuranees. o2<.c-s 05 sent ome wack 10 per cent. 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
45 per mo. 
Average value of Commissions, &c.............-..-. $250 per annum 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors, and labor on shore. .$10.000 


WiMMmUGr Of V Gssels: 1OSG. 625-4 csckase ous con tin ates ane ae none 
Value of Vessels lost, including outhts....0:.:0% -sccs6 ces nwe cee ace “6 
Value.of Fish: lost. 2.c<422.s40~e0 PP ra acme Sede wate 66 
WU DOE OL DIVeS 1O8b262 caxs.coue wemeecey ec cumiaeeas tatu mae ae . 
Total number of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
CWh..- 5% atte Aaeind hese Oat iole, aoa ara le oye tage a NOR nae ag ce 50 cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
BU Se ate ee oa a sated rhs Coe aresa te tenets aero $1.50 per bbl 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. “nothing 
Total-value.of Mackerel dos yc .c acwsiene- se wcieweteneeeee 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel..........- 18 12 8 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel..................-- 128 6— 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year........- $225.00 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and 

VALIOUS BUP DUES is yc sa eeelsaien een een aneee weak 500 per annum 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring... ..$1000 «UE 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.....-.-. $400 “ 2 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs............. S208 Gg 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Bank & Bradlee. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3203 


_ Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


, sas 3 M a 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking .. . aa eras 


eecreeteeoesresees 


Actual value of Mackerel in water, before taken............ oe 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 
eries 
Business has become so unremunative that I bave been eo 
b ‘n compelled to 
abandon it, so as Bay St. Lawrence, Cath now with seners in amert. 
.can waters. Never got fish within English jurisdiction bat on banks 
far from shore. 
. LEVI REED 
STATE OF MAINE 
LINCOLN §.s. 
Nhe and subscribed to before me, this Twenty-second day of May 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Public 
No. 131. 


. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, Charles C, Blake have been 
engaged in the fishing business for the past six years, at Boothbay, Me. 
and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our 
vessels have been employed as follows: . 


NOVOPOV Cssels OPO VON s26 casi Sac ee aeezcstoamenuckoew eet Two— 
PONOE TOs TIROO ss acehe seb peevG aca eee Sate Jee Two trips each— 
1873 & 1874 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.......... 2, — — bbls only. 
116 210 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, 
not including Magdalene Islands... ............-.. - ---notone tenth 
Average value of Vessels each....... oe eee ura ome aes #4.500 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e....... Se Ap iek r ey 2.500 
mVeraze Value Of InSUrAaNnCe... s n25 cess sees s osics a fates 10 per cent 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 

. $40—per month 
Average value of Commissions, &c.........--.-- ++. Aeteescens #200— 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 


including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor ou shore 
Six thousand dollars, 


RITILIOE OL7 OSHRIS 1OGG*. os ve pe bn he cea dale eure a ales BRe Reece ee b'siem hone 
- Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ...-.--.----+.--+se+ee ee us 
BOR Or ISH 1OSG>) sb icSicek ae. Suen pee, ands be deee eens aise 
meeintior of Lives: lost: .ocavco oct. sit teeerGctea saceleeres4sdaeeane 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Me. per 
¢ ; .50 cents per 100 loa, 


Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Xe., per 
$2.00 per bbl. 


caught none 


ad 


Total value of Mackerel do.....-.-- sees eee esses A eRe 
- Average market value of American Shore Mackerel. ..... haga Os 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel .....2.---' 10—6—4. per bbI. 


4 Av j f the operative fishermen per year 
_ Average earnings 0 I Less than #200. per man. 


3204 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 


PHOS 2c hc nico c ent oe Seite eee ees ae ae omega 50 per annum— 


Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Western Bank | Quero Bank, 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel.coast of Maine 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken .........- - 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

send my vesels to the banks as above—within no jurisdiction of any 
government—Have sept two vessels to Bay St L. and. both made fail- 
ures—Now seine for Meckerel off our own coast— 

Shall never send vessels to the bay. as it does not pay. 

CC BLAKE 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty Third day of May 
1877 
(Seal.) ; G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Public. 
No. 132. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Mc- 
Dougall & Race have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
Twenty-Two years, at Boothbay. Maine and that since the Washington 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
follows: 


No. of Vessels employed......... Seis ower eelaers gies atama tits aimwin Ds are ten 
ING: OF ENDS: MIAQO so 2 otee iano eaveia os ue ee alee Yes Three trips each— 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence...... 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 


20 15 10 10 4 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
5.000 2.000 1.500 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, 


not including Magdalene Islands... ...........-.--.- not one tenth 
Average value.of Vessels each... 2.2 655< 2532602 Pas Geeks aes $4.000 
Average value of Oatfits, Salt Bait, Q6...0s<05 2 o0ei2 ssa ss sae $2.500 
Average Value ot Inaurance.2.. 6 xc oo s4 oxcne seas ts seus 9 per cent 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time viz., wages per mo. .$40— 
Average: yahie ot Commissions; Gio .ic ca sos oo tie mane se $250— 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
Fifteen Thousand dollars. 


Number of Vessele lost: «242 jccoccucetcesan asec cen sees. Three— 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits..........-. Thirteen Thousand 
VU OE EISEN ORE tani ect eR Aside at ena, de Ctr ge ee etre Om ee - $2.000 
Number of Lives lost ........... Se idiecdiais eR in ar er Sr Ten 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 

WG Sasie ek kya eae wwe ead ae ona Stee Se 76 cents pe 100 lbs— 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., 

POR COUN 2 giles tino sod Oo state) ozone masinerem is view oe eis wn win ears $1.50— 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .Nothing 
Total value of Mackerel do ........... ers aur e $300 per annum 


~ 


% 


= a ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3205 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel........ 1812. 6 


_ Average market value of Bay Mackerel.... 2.2... 11. 8. 6B—per bbl — 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year... ..... ss 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap 

DOS occ td site ae eee ata sR eipre nti ewine 8000—per annum — 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring...... a300 CO “ 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages... ....$1,000,—" “ 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 

Grand — & Western Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to Bay St. Law. 

Actual value of fish in the water, before taking ..... Less than nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken... “ * “ 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 

eries 

We have now dissolved partner ship—and the business cannot be 
profitably conducted. Fishing was profitable only during the exette 
ment of the war—Never caught any fish within the jurisdiction of any 
government except American— 

Fishing is conducted now by trowling & with Seines. ‘ 

SIMON McDOUGALL 
JAMES L RACE 

STATE OF MAINE— 

LINCOLN 8.8. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me, this twenty-second day of May 
1877. 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON, 

Notary Public. 


In the Bay of St. Lawrence in the years 1875 & 1876 the business of 
fishing was so unprofitable that we send none this year. 

It is impossible to get good fishermen to ship for such voyages— 

JAMES L RACE 

STATE OF MAINE— 
LINCOLN 8. S. 

Personally appeared James L. Race on this Twenty second day of 
May A. D. 1877. and made oath to the truth of the above statement by 


him subscribed— 
G. B. KENNISTON 
a Notary Public. 


No. 133. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm sa 
Nickerson & Sons have been engaged in the fishing business fort Ty 
past Eleven years, at Boothbay. Me. and that since the W ominnee 
Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employes 


‘follows: . — eeu 
Be of Vorela oployed en 20207 aco ep enh 
‘a : No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.------ 2 2 0 aa re 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence ..--- e-- 300 “300 


= 
a «ed 


3206 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands... . ....2- 02-2 200s cece cece cece cess sess none 

Average value of Vessels each...........----..-. Sen mend cara fetatee $5.000— 

Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c................ ..---$1.800— 

Average value of Insurance... 2.665. s--2se2ses. 2555 6ce- ss 9 per cent 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. 
$40.00 per mo. 
Average valuc.of Commissions, WG. 625 s.cce onc oe ces oases eae $200— 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and 
packing, including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on 


SHOLOcc: ness sie Pe Re ene mare ee Se NALD RMP ete $15.000 
NGM DEF OF V GSSOIS 108k... 5% 6650:52.52 aces palaces Geta tnt gi ont ens baa etcee One 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits. ............-.....---. $8.000.00 
Value. of Mish lost.<2 225.03 SNe ee ee eae aie rae sree caer $800.— 
Nuntber ot LAVGR IONE? Jc. tc oS oc ois vie icin Sato e Satara eee none 
Total value-of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c. per 

GWG Ase awicsiaves . eae date as o> ais aon eee ois ae 75 cents—per 100 weight 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 

DU asccter races neice eee eat ter eee era ee $200 per bbI— 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..nothing 
Total value of Mackerel do.......-. ie teen Sle ee wiale arcane eweaw oe 


Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
16. 12 & 8 per bbI— 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel...........-...-...... 11. 6—5 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year...........- $250 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
PON ois icc s ote eects oe Ree eee ee med ewerieeeeeee $1,000— 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring ......... ...-..nothing 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages.....- $300.00 per annum— 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs...... $300.00 per annum. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand Banks—Western Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
now off our own coast. 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.... ........-Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken......-.-.. cy 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American 
fisheries 
The chang has been almost entire in our business—in a few years. 
Since 1873 we have sent no vessels to St. Lawrence after Mackeral be- 
cause it does not pay. Could not ship a crew—none of our vessels take 
fish within the limits of the Dominion—all are caught on the Banks 
many miles from any National Jurisdiction. 
STEPHEN NICKERSON 
STEPHEN E. NICKERSON 
ALONZO R. NICKERSON 


STATE OF MAINE 
LINCOLN 8. 8. ‘ , ‘ 
cae and subscribed to before me, this Twenty second day of May 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Public. 
No. 134, 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of John 
McClintock & Co. have been engaged in the fishing business for the 


= | 


: 
i 
t - 


alling off our shore—The bay fishing 


- send none1877. On this coast our vessells fish for macke 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. $207 


past Forty-Three years, at Boothbay and that since the Washington 
poe so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as 
ollows : | 


No, 08 Vessels omiployed so 004 Jocecc ty a. Seeks scs .-..... Eight—(8) 
No.of Trips Made. cee ia cccs Yona: 5 Trips each vessel yearly average. 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence.... one “ io ye 


av. each 1872 1875 1874 1875 1876 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. 
MUA WLON CO se otc etek pimae en nen oe 200 250 125 100 0 each— 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore 
no. including Magdalene Islands none except near Modeline Ia, 


Average value of Vessels each... ..............2. cece average 85.000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c........ 2.22... “82.500 
Avetagervalne’ ot Insurance... ..20..426.5 e-cacic's's 5 Sae's 4 about 9 per cent 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo 
$40.00 per mo— 
Average value of Commissions, &¢....... ........ s Saaveteaaniats 225 == 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 


820,.000,— 

UTI DOE OL Wy GS8018 LOSE: sai gtk sare vena ss xs Pee aa iets pret Two — 
Value of Vessels lost including outfits. .... Fourteen Thousand dollara. 
SVGRLVINO CDRS IN ORG NdieG ct crare oe tren Preaiale ge he Cal nee ke eeisla Se Gees &? 000— 
Number otcbives: 10st: 2 sscicsae ens oe Gace e caeGG ewe ewaecs Oe 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e. per 
OWiGaee. roe eens Cae ear ne ees ~-..ee--... 0.0 Seventy cents 
Total value of Mackerel taken,before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
Beets oon ss ace See es eines oss s nani ole ae wee 2.00 


Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. nothing 
Totalevalne-of. Mackerel]. <ccns vce 063s hee tee cares “ 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.16. 10. 8—per bbl 


Average market value of Bay Mackerel.....-.-. ll. 8. G—per bbI— 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.. ....- 8200.00 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sap- 
DiC h5G olais sci este oe ie ea eet ER .. 81.000 yearly — 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring.....-.-- e150 + 
Amount paid to’British fishermen as wages ....- .---- 81.500 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs ..-...--------- $500.— 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Grand & Western Banks. 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Cape May to bay St Lawrence 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ee ere ee nothing 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken. . 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conduct 
eries aay ee e 
We have had vessells engaged in cod fishing generally and macker- 

has decreased in value each year 

for five years till it is now worthless—We sent none in 18:6 & shall 

‘ral using seines 

re are worth 40. per cent more thaa 

Banks far from shore outside 


ng American fish. 


ehetally since Mackeral caught he 
ay Mackeral—Our fish are taken on the 
of any National jurisdiction WG McCLINTOCK 
JOHN H McCLINTOCKR § 


3208 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


STATE OF MAINE— 
LINCOLN §. S. 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Twenty second day of May 
1877 
(Seal.) G. B. KENNISTON 
Notary Publie 
No. 135. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of Mi- 
chewl Stinson have been engaged in the fishing business for the past 
twenty years, at Swans Island and that since the Washington Treaty, 
so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


Wot V Gssele 6mployed 5402.4 5¢8 fae sero ek a eee cer 6 
Nowot “Erips Mate 2c se ante cce cre cesioea te winion oaeeioeae 6 per year 
No. of Trips to: bay Sb. Lawrence... so. sosass ces oe ie none for 8 years 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including 
Magdalene Islands 


Average value. of Vessels each: .. s.2..0..6s<80.00- DRS ee ioe $3,000 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c ..... ere $2000 per year | 
Ayerave valuevol Insurance... 25s ores cus ec aes BOO ste H66 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages mo... 35 
Average value of Commissions, &c.... ...-...-. ome ariae 200 per year 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and laboron shore $60U00 


Number of Vessels lost ............ fate AN Cad oF lea liad acs a yearn ie one 
- Value of Vessels lost, including’ outhte:s< 2: 2<.2s2.4- 2222s 2500 
Valne-ot Wisht lost soe 2e 6 2k Soy eo ete cn eee 1800 


Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per ewt 


1.00 

Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
OU ies ho Bers Bes ase cols nee a eeenie ide a cer eee 250 © 

Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 
Total value of Mackerel do. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel.... ....-- i a z 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel ..................-- 12 86 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.... -... 350 


Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various supplies 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 

Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid in British ports for repairs 


Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish .... Western Bank 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking......-.-.--., nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken..........- nothing 


Facts as to changes iu location and mode of conducting American figh- 
eries 


Have formerly been largely engaged in Mackereling in Bay St Law- 
rence say 8 years ago since have been seining off our own shores | 
You left the Bay fishing because we could not pay our expenses do © 
not consider the Bay of St Laurence fishery of any value whatever can- - 
not pay for our out fits this is the experience of all fishermen at Swans | 


a 


Locations frequented by American vessels for fish... -. 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken 


= St Laurence for Mackerel. for the 


oo 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3209 


Island cannot ship a Crew to go to the Bay on Shares 
that went there 8 years ago lost money : 


, 
« 


CVery Veasel 


MICHAEL STINSON 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 15 day of May 1877 
(Seal.) F T BABSON 
Coll of Customs 


Dist of Gloucester 
No. 136. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned Lewis McDonald bave been 
engaged in the fishing business, for the past Ten years, at North Haven 
Maine, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been to 
effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: 


No. of Vessels employed.......... 12, & fit 18 others engaged as below 
BEG Ol ETIDS IMAGO. 01.5505 owe eee eee blue tee een Ae rr ure 5 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence..... wie as me Iss uae 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. 

PAWIONCO Sooo 6 5.05/50 sr atahetateireh. tate a lars 700 700 650 200 0 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ 

Me Magdalene (islands: oo). vena eee es) Not one Barrel in Tea 
Average value of Vessels each .........-......... Re 85,00 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &e ........... $2,000 each Vessel 
mmerage: Valle Ol INSUTANCE. o-2, -s.. cies sees eacamesses: ar0e 9 per ct 


Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo ...835 

Average value of Commissions, &.......-.......... 8200 each Vessel 

Average value of Wharves, Fish-bouses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore .8 10000 

“Number of Vessels lost. 

Value of Vessels lost, including outfits 

Value of Fish lost 

Number of Lives lost 

Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, Mc. per ewt 


- DO eta 

Totol value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &e., 

BOE DD caoc ore ses oa eee oe pistoecvia Ao steiner? ale wrebbesaecens 2,00 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores 

Total value of Mackerel do poe 

Average market value of American Shore Mackerel... ..-. 16. 12. 8 

_ Average market value of Bay Mackerel.--- --------- ie oaths ans 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year... | 
Average amount paid in British ports tor bait, ice, and Various s p 
BROR ac 303. 2 oS xia PNR Mit POONA RAR le A ca! 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages -----+ 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 


8500 Yearly 


Western Banks 
ls for Mackerel 

Cape May Bay St Laarenee 

: : Nothiog 


ations frequented by American vesse 


‘Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking..-.--- 
, . fa wan 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting Amenes 


fisheries : 
i siness sending Vessels into the Bayo 

aving business sending 
Behe ae wneeareh fo last 5 Years. Last year seat none 


3210 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


there the Vessels cannot pay expenses I have therefore abandoned 

the Business at that point and confine my Vessels to the Ocean Banks 

for fish and off our own shores for Mackerel using Seines & Trauls 
LEWIS McDONALD 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 25 day of May 1877 


(Seal.) F T BABSON 
Collector of Customs 
Dist of Gloucester 
No. 137. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned C Wasgatt & Company have 
been engaged in the fishing business for the past Sixteen years, at Swans 
Island Maine, and that since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been 
in effect, our vessels have been employed as follows: Namely since 
1866 


No.of Vessels employed .....:...-...- Ten (10) 14 men to each Vessel 
Now or Erips Made: 2:25 55405665 2 oy race sewers five trips yearly each year 
No. of Trips to Bay St Lawrence 
1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 
6 00 00 00 -1 00 00 00 00 00 00 


. : 1866 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St Lawrence 900 Bls 200 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not includ- 
ing Magdalene Islands...... None caught within three miles of Shore 
ANGTAGG ValuG OL VESSeIS, GUC 2615556 cose os ee see ea east $4000 
Average value of Ontfits, Salt, Bait, &c. ........-2. -..2-2.--- $2200 
Average value of Insurance ...........- 9 per cent on Vessel & Onttits 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo....$32 
Average value of Commissions, &¢c........ $225 to each Captain yearly 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore 
, $2500 yearly | 
Number of vessels lost 
Value of vessels lost, including outfits 
Value of Fish lost 
Number of Lives lost 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
CW bie cece hoor nates Girt ee ee Meier Sete ne sess aires 80 cts 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
WN et ior e a tare Sale oars eaten a Be cues Sel oe ele Se eee ete $2.25 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores. .nothing 
‘otal value of- Mackerel do... 2. -.0-s- cee cues ee nothing 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
No 1s16 No2 11 No3 7.50 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel “ “ 11 “ & 7 & & 5,25 


Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year.......-...- $225 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 

PUGH ee 5 A aan wtacendetecen cad caries si eee Oe Oeste 12008 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring............-.---- 10003 


Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 

Amount paid to British ports for repairs 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Cape May to Gulf of St Lawrence ~ 

Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel ! 

Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking.............. Nothing . 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water before taken......... <i e 


> il ” EE” 
a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3211 


Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish. 

eries 

When I, in the year 1861 became engaged in the fishing business, the 
Bay of St. Lawrence was considered the best fishing ground for mack 
erel, and I sent my vessels there, but the business was pot remunerative 
In the spring of 1867 I concluded I had lost enough mouey there Since 
that time none that I have controlled have goue there (One of . hick I 
owned a part went, I think, in 1870 but she did not pay ber bill.) Sinee 
abandoning the Bay of St. Lawrence the business has, with me, been re 
munerative, I own four times the tonnage and value now that | did ie 
1867. Not one of our Captains or crews have to my recollection, even 
proposed a trip to the Bay within the last five years 

C WASGATT 


: Sworn and subscribed to before me, this Sixth day of Jane 1877 
THOMAS WARREN, 
Justice of the Peace 


STATE OF MAINE. 
HANCOCK, SS. . 

I, Hutson B. Saunders, Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Courts, in said 
County, certify that Thomas Warren Esquire is and was at the date 
of his Certificate an acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said Coanty, 
duly commissioned and qualified to act as such, and that the signatare 
to the paper annexed, purporting to be his, is genuine, and that be is 
| duly authorized and empowered, by the laws of said State, to take ae 

-  knowledgment of Deeds, Assignments, and Powers of Attorney, and to 
administer oaths. 

In Testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my Hand and affixed the 
Seal of the Supreme Judicial Court, for said State, this Sixth day of 
June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy: 
seven 

(Seal.) HUTSON B SAUNDERS Clerk. 


No. 138. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of James 
Fitch of N London Conn have been engaged in the fishing business 
for the past twenty years, at New London Conn und that siace the 
Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have bewa 


employed as follows: T 
No. of Vessels employed ..-...-----+eesste eee reeset sett ss ‘i 

BeLOl <UriDS MAUG = << cae seep ae sone Sees es RENT es nest 

No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence ....-.------+s+2 00000" — 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence....-. ee 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not inelas Og 


Magdalene Islands.....-.------.*:+::7 077" uardiheat aes 1 none 
oh “ ousarm wk 

Average value of Vessels each..--.------ >>> Three Thousand | ile 
| sal ce Two Thousand Dolls 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &¢..---.-->> ee 


_ Average value of Insurance .-.-.----- spencer ak pea Semana: 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, VIZ, as 2 ave Dolls 
_ Average value of Commissions, Xc.------+-- D toldlbmnaitetiaieres 
Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, SS chase on anare 


F Verks. Proprietor: 
cluding expenses of Olerks Eropncer Twenty Thousand Dolls 


3212 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 


IN Mm DOL OL _V.OSSCIS OSU socks a a ee ic wei te wi aeraG ea oes one 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits ..... .-Three Thousand Dollars 
Wialrics of ish LONG o.oo oe ice ee ec ars ate aise hic tee ReneS ais none 
Namber of lives lost: js354545 5 26. e kines es Re Sere Pa. SE Sire Six 


Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per cwt. 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
bbl. 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores....none 
Total value of Mackerel do. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two Hundred & fifty Dolls 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
PNOS 2c cet sas Buse ecii yeh nen Sate eee ee yearly one Hundred Dolls 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Georges & Lahave Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 


Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ...........-.. Nothing 

Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken.......... Nothing 

Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 


Our vessels are engaged mostly in the Halibut & Cod Fisheries Some 
of them have tried down to the Bay of Fundy & have proved a failure 
for this reason we confine our fishing to the American waters & the 
Ocean Banks not using the British waters for any fishing whatever 

JAMES FITCH 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 17th day of May 1877 
(Seal.) / C. G. SISTARE 
Notary Public 


No. 139. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of C A 
Weaver & Co New London Conn have been engaged in the fishing busi- 
ness for the past 35 years, at New London Conn and that since the 
Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been 
employed as follows: 


INGE Vessels Obi DlO Ved. wu vs chawhcts pea ella eeumetieee exes 15. | 
ING.-O0 “ERDS MAROec: 4 eee eee PS EM PER oP} Ieper teu ueeeaet ee, 'e Eight | 
Nowof Trips:to:Bay St. Lawrence. .aacrcss soe seas cece etnies none 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence...........---- none « 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, not including | 
Magdalene Islands........... Abie Ratataiase erst Oviatt eee wien none | 
Average valine of: Vessels /6ACiice~<\ fun beak oc cee oc ee aacais Ae 4000 « 
Average value of Outfits, Salt, Baits SiG oo sao. penne at eee eaten 3900 | 
Average Value of Insnrance -<..-.5.05 onus eee Coa ech sens. nine per ent 
Average value of Captains’ and Crews’ time, viz., wages per mo. . Forty 
Average value of Commissions, &c.. ...........-.-....Four Huudred 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &¢., for curing and packing, 
including expenses of Clerks, Proprietors and labor on shore * 

: Twenty Thousand doll 

wom ber OLN Gasols 10Gb vac oct vec tea aens eee eeenaee -+ 0 oe 


~~ including expenses of Clerks, P 


SNomber of Vessels lost ...----ee eee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 32138 
Value of Vessels lost, including outfits..........., ate CPEIEL 

MMOL GL BN IOBG osrtos crt Seo c seas ge = Sta ee eee 100 — 
MEMIOE OF TAVER TORU. boon ce ae liu ete eo a eee es grees 


salting, &e. per owt. 
splitting, salting, &c., 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores... 
Total value of Mackerel do ” 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
: Two Hundred & fifty doll 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and varivas au p- 
plies..-...-. settee tee e et eee ee bogie ad bes 300 dollors 5 earley 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
An.ount paid in British ports for repairs............... 0 doll yearley 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish : 
Georges Browns Lahove & Western banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking ... ........ nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, before taken ......... nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American feb 
eries 
our vessalls are engaged mostley in the Halibut and Cod fishenes 
we have sent our vessols in the the Bay of Funday the trips bave 
proved a failure in almost every trip for this reason we confine oar 
fisheries to the oacean banks out side of oney national jurisdiction aed 
our own shores 


. bone 


C A WEAVER & CO 
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 17th day of May 1877 
(Seal.) C. G. SISTARE 
Notary Public 
No. 140. 


This is to certify, That the undersigned, composing the firm of HA 
Brown & Co of New London Conn have been engaged in the Oshing 
business for Ten years at New London Conn and that since the Wash 
ington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been em 

loyed as follows: 


“No. of Vessels employed .....-------2e--eerere ester sett Tea 
Mo. of Trips made .........- ----2 eee ee eee eeee Paes slat 
No. of Trips to Bay St. Lawrence .....-------+-+-+0+++° paee 
No. of Barrels of Mackerel from Bay St. Lawrence .....-- .. None 


No. of Barrels of Mackerel caught within 3 miles of shore, Hot ae 
. * one 
ing Magdalene Islands....-.----++-++++2¢-70°° | Foor Thousand 

Average value of Vessels each ..---- 2555-5" Shae emer 

Average value of Outfits, Salt, Bait, &c...--- eo Nit reas 

¥. ibe 

Average value of Insurance.....------ years oie ace ae : 

2 . Ne eS | Ven, a vs ime, Vi a a ry a LiL 

Average value of Captains’ and Crews rLirts @ce 

: RSs . 4 lhellars 

Average value of Commissions, &¢ .----+-++-*: Two Hundred 


Average value of Wharves, Fish-houses, &c., for curing and packing, 
roprietors and labor on shore 

Twenty Thousand Dollars 
... Five 


i 
i. 


3214 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Value of Vessels lost, including outfits. ..... - Thirty Thousand Dollars 
Value of Fish lost 
Namber of Lives lost: <2) 35 ssc geneae secs -+-e-.-eo Lwenty Five 
Total value of Fish taken, before curing, splitting, ‘salting, &e., per cwt 
Total value of Mackerel taken, before curing, splitting, salting, &c., per 
bbl 
Total value of Fish taken within three miles of British shores..... None 
Total value of Mackerel do. 
Average market value of American Shore Mackerel 
Average market value of Bay Mackerel 
Average earnings of the operative fishermen per year 
Two Hundred & Fifty Dollars 
Average amount paid in British ports for bait, ice, and various sup- 
DIGS Geez has Soe ee catia a as we eae eee ee Anes Two Hundred Dollars 
Amount paid to British fishermen for herring 
Amount paid to British fishermen as wages 
Amount paid in British ports for repairs 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Fish 
Georges Brown, La Have & Western Banks 
Locations frequented by American vessels for Mackerel 
Actual value of Fish in the water, before taking. ............ Nothing 
Actual value of Mackerel in the water, befors taken.....-.-.-... Nothing 
Facts as to changes in location and mode of conducting American fish- 
eries 
Our Vessels are engaged mostly in the Halibut & Cod Fisheries 
We have had our vessels go to the Bay of Fundy in some cases but it 
has been unprofitable & we have discontinued it & confine our Fishing 
to the Banks outside of any National Jurisdiction and to our own shores 
H A BROWN &CO 


Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 17th day of May 1877 
(Seal.) C. G. SISTARE 
Notary Public 
No. 141. 


Solemn Declaration of William Harvey concerning the Fisheries in Ameri- 
can Canadian Waters 


I William Harvey reside at Aulds Cove Strait of Canso 

My name is William Harvey am fifty four years of age. have been 
engaged fishing since I was twelve Years old, have been employed from 
Kighteen to twenty Seasons in American Vessels fishing for Cod and 
Mackerel in the Gulf of St Lawrence and on the Atlantic Coast of 
British America and two Seasons on the United States Coast. I have 
often fished alongside of an American Mackerel fishing fleet when em- 
ployed in Provincial fishing Vessels. the Catch of Mackerel by Colo- 
nial Mackerel fishing vessels is not at all lessened on account of an 
American fleet being alongside of them the main reason for that is I 
think is that more bait is thrown out 

Fully one half of the Crews of American fishing Schooners visiting 
the fishing grounds of Dominion of Canada are residents and subjects 
of the Dominion of Canada In ease they are employed on Shares their 
Monthly Wages will average from thirty to thirty five Dollars per Month 
inany get for the trip lasting for about three Months from one hundred 
and twenty to One hundred and fifty Dollars. 

They the American fishermen very seldom make use of our shore for 
Curing their fish or drying Nets. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3215 


The Mackerel fishing during the last four or five 
fallen off, during that time the Average ( 
about one half of what it was ten or twelve 
fishing done by the Americans Worth mentioning on these Shores I have 
seen occasionally a few American vessels the beginning of June arrive 
at the fishing grounds but the great body or heft of them don't arrive 
until July : 

And I William Harvey aforesaid do solemnly dec! 
entiously declare that the Statements made in the fore 
are true and I make this Solemn declaration by virtue 
in the 37th Year of Her Majestys Reign entitled 
sion of Voluntary and Extra judicial Oaths 

Aulds Cove, Nova Scotia June 11. 1877 


Years has very much 
atch has at moat only been 
Years ago There is ho boat 


are that I conse 
going declaration 
of the Act puansod? 
au Act for the Sappres 


WILLIAM HARVEY 
In presence of 
JAMES G. McKEEN 
Justice of the Peace. 
No. 142. 


Donald McEachren being duly sworn, says. 


My name is Donald McEachren 1am fifty two years old I am a 
British Subject reside at New Town Strait of Canso. have since Eigh 
teen hundred and fifty been employed as a fisherman every Season with 
the Exception of two on board of American fishing Schooners. aboat 
ten or twelve summers I was shipped in the United States. the Vessels 
or Schooners in which I was employed fished for Mackerel and Cod on 
the Coast of Prince Edward Island. Cape Breton New Brunswick Prov 
vince of Quebec and the Magdalen Islands We often fished alongside 
of Colonial Vessels the American fleet being alongside of them did not 
interfere with the Catch of Mackerel or Cod by Colonial Vessels, on the 
Contrary, on account of the great quantity of bait thrown out by the 
American fishermen the Mackerel stay longer on the surface of the 
Water and bite better than they do when Colonial Vessels are alone 
‘because the latter throw out much smaller quantity of bait, therefore 
the Colonial Vessels catch more Mackerel when alongside of an Amer 
ican fleet, the Colonial Vessels are in the habit of following the Amer 
ican Vessels on the fishing grounds for the reasons stated during the 
last two Seasons the Americans have visited the Colonial Waters io 
much smaller numbers than formerly because there own fishing Kroands 

have become very productive that is they bave always been very good 
but of late years they Americans have got into the babit of Seine eh 
ing which they may use in deep water and is the most profitable way 
of catching Mackerel. Mackerel is found in great abuadance to deep 
Water on the American Coast. ry ee 

Independent of the number of American fishing Vessels there #1!) per 
haps be a series of year when Mackerel will appear in great (quantiles 
on some Shores, then almost disappear from these Coasts for another 
Series of Years or Seasons and thereupon reappear in as great quantiles 
as ever, the causes for that may be many but are not known, Mackerel 
are very uncertain in their movements : ie 

- During the last three years the average number of American fol 

- Vessels in the entire Atlantic Provincial Waters excepting Chose = \ ats 

foundland have been about One hundred and ae Sails ie is, — ee! 

: ney RS . ao » tas vt ere Wi © Pent | 

_ ber was engaged in Mackerel fishing Ue Ba inca eae 

about Seventy five Sail of American Mac aatanyeldecr oan ar eg 
grounds just mentioned during the five rears | : 


. 
é 


i 


hing 


3216 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


three Years the average number of American Mackerel fishing Vessels 
was within the same Waters that I have just named between four and 
five hundred. The average tonnage of an American fishing Vessel 
is about Seventy five Tons 

Jodfishing is not carried on by the American fishing Vessels within 
three miles from shore 

I do not know what the expences are of an averaged sized vessel of 
Seventy five Tons would be for another outfit received in the Provinces 
on proceeding again to the fishing grounds after having landed her fare 
in the Provincial Ports for reshipment but the average amount expended 
by the American fishing fleet in the Provinces would be about three 
hundred Dollars for Each Vessel per season independent of that portion 
of the fleet which land their Cargoes in the Provinces and incur large 
outlays in refitting for another trip or fare of Mackerel. 

For Number one and two Mackerel and Number one Salmon caught 
by Colonial fishermen the United States are the only Market, the same 
may be said of fat Herring during the last few years. formerly a small 
proportion of them went to Quebec and Montreal 

The Americans do not use the Coast of the British Provinces except 
Newfoundland for drying Net, or Curing fish 

About two thousand Provincial. fishermen have been employed pr 
Season during the last ten Years on board American fishing Vessels 
Among these are about five hundred from Prince Edwards Island the 
others to the greater extent from Nova Scotia 

The presence of American fishermen on our Coasts has in my Opinion 
been a great advantage to the people of the Provinces 

Aud I Donald McEachren aforesaid do solemnly declare on Oath that 
I conscientiously believe that the Statements made in the foregoing 
declaration are true, so help me God 

DONALD McEACHERN 


CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
At Pictou, Nova Scotia, Port Hastings Agency June 9th. 1877 


I hereby certify that the foregoing and above Affidavit was duly made 
before me on the 9th. day of June 1877 by the above named Donald 
McEachren and on said day signed and sworn to before me by him the 
said McEachern. 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul at Pictou. 
No. 143. 


Solemn Declaration of Richard Jackman concerning the Fisheries in 
Canadian and American Waters. 


Richard Jackman says that he resides near to Port Mulgrave on the 
West side of the Strait of Canso Iam a fisherman by occupation Am 
thirty Six Years of age went fishing when I was ten years old have 
been engaged fishing on board of American fishing Vessels after Cod- 
fish and Mackerel about twenty one years and five Seasons in Colonial 
fishing vessels. I was Master of American fishing Vessels four Season 
and three Seasons Master of Colonial fishing Vessels. I used to go the 
first part of the Year Codfishing and the latter part Mackereling. I 
Went generally to the Grand Banks Western Banks and Gulf of St 
Lawrence for Codfish and to the Gulf of St Lawrence and along the 
American Shore for Mackerel. I went in American fishing Vessels to 
the Georges Banks for Codfish Seven Winters 


1.” 
t ? 
rae 
ve 
. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3217 


Mackerel first appear in the Spring about the first of April off the 
American Coast near Cape Henry where they are generally caught or 
taken in Seines and from there they follow the American Coast East 
wardly to Cape Cod and from there they scatter, part remaining around 
the American Coast and part going Eastwardly along the Nova Seotia 
Coast and entering the Gulf of St. Lawrence about the first of Jane 

| Mackerel are taken with Seines in large quantities on the American 
| Coast the last few Years formerly they were caught with hooks 
The American fishermen generally commence taking Mackerel in the 
Gulf of St Lawrence or other parts of the Atlantic Coast of British 
North America about the tenth of June and continue fishing until about 
the first of November 
More than half the Mackerel caught along the Coasts of British North 
America during the last ten Years by both Colonial and American fish. 
ing Vessels were taken outside of three Miles from the Shore | 
About ten Years ago there were upwards of three hundred American 
fishing Vessels passed through the Strait of Canso into the Galf of 
St. Lawrence every season for the purpose of Catching Mackerel & Cod. 
fish five years ago there probably two hundred vessels Since that 
time the number has been decreasing until last year when there only 
about Seventy Sail of American fishing Vessels in the Gulf of St Law. 
nce 
nthe average size of American fishing Vessels is about Seventy Tons. 
such a Vessel when new would cost to build and rig about Six to seven 
thousand Dollars and a vessel of the same would cost to build and rig in 
the Provinces about three thousand to four thousand Dollars ; 
The only fish the American catch inshore on the Atlantic Colonial 
Coasts are Mackerel The most of the ame in Mackerel fishermen now 
h Mackerel on their own coast ouly 2 
Sra that the right to fish on the American Coast would be as val. 
uable to the people of the British Provinces as the Scene —- Ae 
Americans provided our people had as good vessels eS — 
as well and had as much enterprise as the Americans = 7 he prese npr 
American fishermen in the Provinces is of great pecuniary eis = . 
Fea oe eats Bai Salt and fra arrole Sa 
supplies of Provisions Bait } ; Tels § 
ae pega las of fishermen’s supplies and occasional! pose 
poate, to tele. esos rewitoplete tha te avenge expend 
Bpars Sc. &e Prom 0y. ol Sea : ath ovinces during the whole 
ture of American fishing Vessels in the British Pr 
season would be upwards of Seven hundred Dollars ae 
The American fishermen make little or no - of ee bla 
ing their fish and drying their nets on tbe toes Pl the United States 
The bait used for Catching Mackerel comes the ade 
: ’ ; : Imost entirely on the Amer 
peasists of Pogies and pans ang « re same kind of bait and ob 
“apr eee ee Spanien are taken nearly altogether in 
tain it from the Unite ates, , 
. e . : id 
Seines and within three sane ae ~ ah Neblee 
I was born in the Strait 0 af do Solemnly declare that I coo 
And I Richard Jackman aforesaid Co ae by-me in the foregoing 
‘scientiously believe that the Statements made by me It Nin rine of 
- declaration are true and [ make this Solemn dee A 


; : : 4 

the Act passed in the 37th Year of Her reelpas te iat aba pace: 
r ; , icla . : 

for the Suppression of Voluntary and Pxta Pic anpD JACKMAN 


202 F 


> 


3218 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I the undersigned Notary Public Do hereby Certify that on the 11th 
day of June 1877 personally appeared before me the above named Rich- 
ard Jackman and then and there made and subscribed the above and 
foregoing declaration as Witness my hand and Seal of Office at Port 
Mulgrave the day and year above mentioned 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No, 144. 


Statement of Thomas Chas Smith of Port Hood Island concerning fisheries 
made June 8th. 1877. 


My name is Thomas Chas Smith, am about 55 years oid, have always 
resided on Port Hood Island, I have been engaged in fishing since I 
was a boy, have never sailed on American fishing schooners—my fishing 
has almost exclusively boat fishing between and along the Coasts of Cape 
Breton & Pr. Edwr Island the American fishermen have come less and 
less during the last 5 years to these fishing grounds—I am convinced 
that the presence of Am. fishing schooners has pecuniarily greatly 
benefited the people of this Province and that the American fishing 
fleet has never interfered with, that is, lessened the catch of Colonial 
fishermen of mackerel or other fish on the contrary I believe that the 
presence of the American fishing fleet on account of their throwing out 
such a great quantity of best bait has attracted the mackerel to these 
parts and that when the Americans were so much interfered with by 
Dominion Revenue Cutters some years ago and thereby and by other 
molestations partly driven away from these waters, the mackerel began 
to leave us to, not be able to obtain as much excellent food as when the 
Americans threw out so much bait. Where from 8 to10 years ago and 
before that time a hundred barrels of mackerel caught there are now 
& have been during the last 3 years scarcely 10 barrels caught. The 
Americans do not take to boat fishing, their way of mackerel fishing is 
by schooners. The American fishermen do not cure their fish our our 
shores and but exceptionally dry their nets on our grounds. Hundred 
of cattle and great quantities of all kinds of farm produce were sold 
during the season to the Americans while they were coming here in 
great numbers and money circulated freely in consequence but I am not 
able to make an estimate of how much they spent on an average during 
the season either per single vessel or in the aggregate. 

THOMAS SMITH 


Subscribed & sworn to before me June 8. 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS . 
U. S. Consul 
No. 145. 


Solemn Declaration of Asberry Strahan concerning the Fisheries in Cana- 
dianand American Waters 


Asberry Strahan says that he resides near Aulds Cove on the West- 
ern side of the Strait of Canso, am a fisherman by occupation, am now 
fifty years of Age, am a British Subject, my home has always been in 
Nova Scotia where I was born, I have been thirty seven Summers fish- 
ing, thirty two Summers of which, I was fishing in American Vessels 
and five Summers in Colonial Vessels 

The first few Years I went fishing in American Vessels, was for Cod- 
fish, in the Gulf of St Lawrence, always outside of three miles from 


hie 


SE ET eae Saeeey O e 


‘number of our Men employed in 


- would generally appear on the surf 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3219 


shore. then I went fishing for Mackerel in American Veasela. | 
Gulf of St Lawrence, the last three years I have been Hones Asians 
Mackerel on the American Coast in United States Vessels, and ric, 
Mackerel plentiful, I was fishing on Shares as a hand on board. the 
general length of the fishing Season is about five months. the first 
summer I was Seining Mackerel, I cleared two hundred and fifteen Dol. 
lars, the.second season three hundred and Sixty two Dollars, and the 
last season two hundred and sixty Dollars, averaging Each season two 
hundred and Seventy nine Dollars or fifty five Dollars pr Month clear 
of boarding 

The bait used for catching Mackerel comes from the United States 
consists.of Pogies or Menhaden and Clams, and is taken almost entirely 
along the American Coast, Colonial fishing vessels use the same kind 


of bait as American fishing vessels, and obtain it from the United States, 


Pogies are taken nearly altogether in Seines and within three Miles of 
the land, 

Ten to twelve Years ago about three hundred American fishing vea- 
sels frequented the Gulf of St Lawrence after Mackerel, and generally 
obtained good fares, taking from one to three fares each season, and 
frequently landing their first and second trips or fares in the Strait of 
Canso, or in Prince Edwards Island for reshipment to the United States, 
by Steamer or Sailing Vessel, Mackerel have been getting scarcer iu 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence every Year during the last four or five Years, 

The American Mackerel fishermen purchase large quantities of Supplies 
in the Provinces, such as Salt, Barrels, Bait, Clothiug, provisions, Wood, 
Small Stores, and all kinds of fishing supplies, and occasionally require 
large outlays in repairs to their vessels, the average expenditure by 
the American Mackerel fishermen in the British Provinces during the 


produetive seasons would I have no doubt be upward of Seven hundred 


Dollars each pr Season which would in the aggregate amount to two 
hundred and ten thousand Dollars ($210.000) from the Mackerel fleet 


pr season 


The Codfishing fleet of American vessels also purchase supplies largely 
in the Provinces such as Ice, fresh Herring and Mackerel for baiting thetr 
vessels, Clothing, Wood, provisions, small Stores &c with oceasioval 
repairs, the average expenditure of the Codtishing fleet would be about 
three hundred and fifty Dollars to four hundred for each vessel pr sea 
son, there are about One hundred American Codtishing essels calling 
and obtaining Supplies in the Strait of Canso. I cannot give an opie 
ion of the amount of Supplies they purchase in other ports of the British 


_ Provinces, 


he entire- fleet of American fishing Vessels give employment on 
board their vessels to a great many of the people of this Province, I 
should say that during the last ten Years on an average that six to 
Seven hundred of our men found employment on board of American 
fishing Vessels yearly The presence of American fishermen in our 
Ports is of great pecuniary gain to our people, in consequence of the 


large Amountts of Supplies they purchase in our Ports, and the great 
American fishing Vessels 


The American fishermen make very little use of the privilege 6f car 


ing fish and drying nets &c on our shores, 
When Mackerel wets plentiful in the waa St. seapdbbstiti os 
P r the Gulf, Wherever bait was (hrown at 
_ Speer ares pee ‘ace, and more Mackerel were taken 
outside than inside three Miles from the Shore | : 
I believe that the right to fish on the American Coast would be as 


3220 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


valuable to the Colonial fishermen as the Colonial fisheries to Ameri- 
cans, provided our people had as good vessels as well fitted and had as 
much Capital and enterprise as the Americans 

And | Asberry Strahan aforesaid do solemnly declare that I con- 
scientiously believe that the Statements made in the foregoing declara- 
tion are true and I make this declaration by virtue of the Act passed 
in the 37th. Year of Her Majestys Reign Entitled an Act for the sup- 
pression of voluntary and extra judicial oaths 

BERRY STRAHAN 


I hereby Certify that on the 9th day of June 1877 above named 
Berry Strahan personally appeared before me and made and subscribed 
the foregoing Solemn Declaration As witness my hand & seal of Of: 
fice 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 146. 


Port Hoop ISLAND, C. B. June 7th, 1877. 
Statement of Nathaniel Smith of Port Hood Island. . 


IT am 58 years old, have always lived on Port Hood Island following 
cod and mackerel fishing since I began to grow up—during the last 10 
years the mackerels have much less frequented the Gulf of St Lawrence 
their number has much decreased and during the last 3 years the catch 
of mackerel has been almost a failure—We hardly ever see the Ameri- 
cans tish in boats. LI don’t think the catch of mackerel in these waters 
has decreased on account of the fishing of the American fishermen. 
The Americans as far as I know never land of the adjacent shores to 
cure fish and but seldom to dry nets—codfishing is not carried on by 
the Americans within 3 miles from shore or at least extremely seldom ; 
I have never been employed as a fisherman on American vessels—The 
Americans while the catches were good put considerable money into 
circulation in this neighbourhood but I have no idea of the aggregate 
amount or of the average expenditure of a single vessel. I solemnly 
declare that the above statement of facts is correct and make this dec- 
laration conscientiously believing that said facts are true and under the 
act of 37 Victoria entitled an Act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extra judicial oaths. 

N SMITH 


Port Hood Island June 7 1877 


Declaration made and subscribed before 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S Consul 
No. 147. 


Solemn Declaration by Hugh Cameron concerning the Fisheries in Cana- 
dian & American Waters made at Port Hastings Strait of Canso N. 8. 
this 5th day of June 1877 


Hugh Cameron says that he resides at New Town on the East side of 
the Strait of Canso, am a British subject fiftytwo Years old, am ac- 
quainted with the American and Canadian Atlantic Sea Fisheries. 

For the last three years there has been more or less of a failurein the 
Catch of Codfish Mackerel and Herring in the Waters of the Gulf of 


} 


I 


, 


_ think that the average expenditure of 
_ British Provinces during the whole Se 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. $221 


St. Laurence no Codfis Jaught insi 
Wee Oanst iat the one one inside the Waters of the Atlantic 
Bh allie got in tie Cateh: oc Oottae dnt ee ee ee 
Seoportiaugy that lala tng wlakes gee pees about in the following 
Preugunehevninile ctW@odash anantt oe of Sixty Tons to catch a 
Vecalabous ight Weekete Orci a eeks it would take the same 
een alton diventy. Wears aeelbscaid an same quantity of fish ten years 
Spicer asahont ise Wert in Obit sis six Weeka, and about thirty 
same a tae In the same quantity of fish in the 
he Catch of Mackerel i 3 
about two thirds at any dopey ech sr : - oS ek one fone 
pede vaio vane cic aaa aes a was before that time foar 
pAphasliniecdn Oureormnd halt 2 tan Be eres would take in a fare 
about two Cargoes or fares about twenty pc ever eg decree 
rons or fares y Years ago about three Car 
I have been empl ‘ 
ee ever since ‘on phere see aa he ate preondecy ithe 
easons when I did 1 ishin mage ter palin 
board a Colonial fone eerie ae ok ee aes Saree 
Vessels. curing fish or drying their N pan seoee : psieht petra, 
ce taking Herrings at the Magaalons eeuae jianponge yr pager 
eines on Shore The Americans do not use the insh Bp Bed ea 
for the Catching of Codfish There is m : ekerel: eahypdodirs 
the three Mile limit than inside, as near aan Sies taieae 
, judge about two thirds 
hay once caught by Americans are caught from three to six Miles 
Mackerel fishing now begins off Tew , 
Vessels follow the fish in their run diceeart aie. Slalear ML Reape: 
thence to the Coasts of the British Provinces about from two thirds ¢ 
three quarters of the mackerel remain during their ran North Saakwi i 
from New Jersey to the Gulf of St. Lawrence over three Miles ac 
Shore, opposite the Southern Coast of Nova Scotia only a@ very small 
portion of the Mackerel during their course Eastward come nearer to 
the shore than six Miles for the purpose of playing during fine Weather 
During the Seasons when Mackerel and Codfish were plenty there 
were in the Course of the Season in the Gulf of St Lawrence about four 
hundred American Mackerel fishing Vessels and about two handred 
and fifty to three hundred American Codfishing Vessels according to 
present measurement the tonnage of American fishing Vessels refered 
to were from thirty to ninety Tons the average would be aboat fitty 
five to fifty Eight Tons—for an averaged sized Vessel for Codfishing 
the number of the Crew would be about ten. and the number of Crew 
for a Mackerel Catcher would be sixteen and the Crew of a Vessel of 
average size after Herrings would be about six hands 
For about ten Years I shipped on board American fishing Vessels io 
the United States generally during the mouth of April and continaed 
in them until the close of the season about the Ist of Noyember and 
the other Seasons I shipped in the American Vessels at the Strait of 
Canso. during these Seasons these Vessels were supplied in the Sev. 
eral Ports of the British Provinces from Yarmouth all the way to Port 
Daniel in the Bay Cheleur with all kinds of outfits such as Provisions 


Salt Barrels Bait ice Clothing small Stores and occasionally with Rig 


o vessels spar booms Kc. Xe 

during my Experience | should 
American fishing vessels in the 
ason would be upwards of Seven 


ging Canvas Anchors and repairs t 
From what I have seen and heard 


3222 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


hundred Dollars out of every hundred Vessels frequenting the Gulf of 
St Laurence fishing about Seven or Eight would require more or less 
repairs the proper proportion of which is included in my Estimate 

In my opinion the coming of American fishing Vessels to our shores 
has no influence whatever in lessening the Catch of Mackerel of the 
Colonial fishing Vessels . 

The difference in fitting out and furnishing for a fishing Voyage an 
American Vessel as compared with a Colonial fishing Vessel would be 
about twenty five pr Cent. the American Vessel costing that much more 
than the other 

I believe that the right to fish on the American Coast would be as 
valuable to the people of the British Provinces as the Colonial fisheries 
are to the Americans provided our people had as good Vessels and 
fitted them out as well and had as much enterprise as the Americans. 

And I Hugh Cameron aforesaid do solemnly declare that I conscien- 
tiously believe that the statements made in the foregoing declaration 
are true and I make this declaration by virtue of the Act passed in the 
37th Year of Her Majestys Reign entitled an act for the suppression of 
Voluntary and Extra Judicial Oaths 

HUGH CAMERON 


In presence of : ) 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul j 


Port HASTINGS NOVA SCOTIA 
June 7th 1877 


Personally come and appeared before me the subscribing Justice of the 
Peace for the County'of Inverness, Hugh Cameron of New Town who did 
acknowledge before me that he Voluntarily made and subscribed the 


foregoing solemn Declaration 
JAMES G. McKEEN 


Justice of the Peace 
No. 148. 


Memorandum of remarks made by James Johnson concerning Canadian 
Fisheries 


James Johnson says that he resides at Port Hastings Cape Breton, I 
am a fisherman by occupation from 1853 to 1876 with the exception of 
one season I have been employed as a fisherman on Board American 
fishing Schooners on or near the Coast of British North America i e the 
Atlantic British Coast I went chiefly from Gloucester Massachusetts— 
once however from New London I have been mostly engaged in Mack- 
erel fishing in the Bay of Cheleur, North Cape Prince Edwards Island, 
between the latter and Cape Breton 

American fishermen generally commence taking Mackerel in the Gulf 
of St. Laurence or other parts of the Atlantic Coast of British North 
America about the 15th of June and continue fishing until about the 1st 
of November, the average voyage being about six Weeks in length. 

The Colonial fishermen when fishing inshore, alongside of an Ameri- 
can fleet of fishing Vessels catch more fish on account of the American 


Vessels throwing large quantities of Bait Fishing Vessels of the same. 


size in the United States would cost about Sixty per Cent more than 
Colonial built Vessels and the Outfit about one quarter more than in the 
Colonies, the only fish the Americans Catch in shore on the Atlantic 
Colonial Coasts are Mackerel. The most of the American Mackerel 
fishermen now Cateh Mackerel on their own Coast only, there were 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3223 


only about thirty sail of . i ack 
St. Laurence last season ae Gar pa peedatih Bel rsdn dd 
ee fishing grounds | 
elieve that the righ : j y 
valuable to the people of ioe Bato pores i eee 
to Americans provided our people had as ai slat cronial Grheries 
out as well and had as much enterprise as the A Beas z eral 
The Mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Laurence heat . 
productive during the last six or Seven Years thar fo seats sre 
er AEE SuGSE ian pete 1 formerly, former! 
é a years ago from two hundred to two hundred j 
fifty American Vessels for Mackerel used to frequent tt Gr of 8 
Laurence and obtain fair average Cargoes of Mackerel wt ile fae! neh 
son of 1876 only about thirty Mackerel fishing Vessels aa ieee te 
Gulf and the greater part of these made broken voyages, Pistia 
The presence of American fishermen in the Provinces is of g 
waged benefit to our people sa 
or many years past little or no use has been made of the privilege 
eae fish and drying Nets on our Shores by the Meestioas fisher. 
During the seasons when the Mackerel fisheries were p iv 
were ten years ago the American fishermen would ser nice ian 
about Six Weeks they would then deposit or store at this or neighbor 
ing points on the Strait of Canso to be reshipped to the United States 
while they would return once or twice more to the fishing grounds to 
obtain further Cargo during such a season the average Expenditare of 
a Midling sized Schooner (say 70 Tons) in the Provinces would be about 
In consequence of the lesser productiveness of the Mackerel fisheries 
during the last six or seven Years the American fishing Vessels have 
seldom taken over one Cargo of Mackerel in the season and frequently 
have not been half filled and consequently the Expetiditures in the 
Provinces have been proportionably reduced, very few Mackere! having 
rap ety ne reshipment to the United States 
am and always have been a Britis jec idibg ; 
“Digan y e ritish subject residibg in the Province 
_And I James Johnson aforesaid do solemnly declare that I conseien- 
tiously believe that the facts contained in the foregoing declaration are 
true and I make this declaration by virtue of the Act passed in the 37th 
Year of Her Majesty’s Reign Entitled an Act for the suppression of 
voluntary and Extra Judicial Oaths. 


St. Laurence comprises aboat 


JAMES JOHNSON. 


Port Hastings Nova Scotia | 

June dth 1877 ) 
I hereby Certify that on the 5th day of Jane 1877 the above named 
James Johnson personally appeared before me and made and Sabseribed 
the foregoing Solemn Declaration. As Witness my hand aod Seal of 


fice. 
(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEES 
| Notary Public 


No. 149. 


_ Solemn Declaration by Eduard Fox concerning the Fisheries in Canadsan 


& American Waters 


at Fox Pond on the East side of the 


Edward Fox says that he resides 
: t twenty Eight Years old, bave fol. 


_. Strait of Canso, am a British subjee 


3224 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


lowed the fishing business for twelve Years. always in American fishing 
vessels with the Exception of one fishing voyage in a Nova Scotia Vessel 

The Colonial fishermen as a rule catch more Mackerel when alongsidea 
fleet of American fishermen which throw out large quantities of bait, 
the best and principal bait used for Mackerel is nearly all taken off the 
American Coast and within three miles of the shore so far as I have 
ever seen, the bait referred to consists of Pogies and Clams nearly all 
the bait now used by Colonial fishing Vessels is the bait before men- 
tioned by me and is taken along the American Coast 

For Number one and two Mackerel, Number One Salmon and fat Her- 
rings the United States are the only Market with the Exception of a 
small quantity that go to Canada, of the fat Herrings however more are 
sent to Canada than of the Mackerel or Salmon 

The average size of American Mackerel and Codfishing Vessels en- 
gaged fishing on the Colonial Coasts is from sixty-five to Seventy Tons 
the Catch of Mackerel in the Gulf of St. Laurence during the last six 
or seven Years has been gradually decreasing, the Season of 1876 be- 
ing almost a failure in the Catch of Mackerel in Colonial Waters. 

Mackerel for some unknown reasons sometimes appear for Series of 
Years on some Costs in great numbers and then again for a number of 
years will appear in decreasing numbers and finally altogether disap- 
pear. 
: Ten Years ago and up to that time there were about two hundred & 
fifty to three hundred American fishing Vessels passing through the 
Strait of Canso every season to catch fish in the Chelaur Bay and Coasts 
of the Gulf of St Laurence Six Years ago there were about two hun- 
dred vessels, since that time the number has been greatly decreasing 
until last Year when the entire fleet of Mackerel fishing Vessels in the 
Gulf of St Laurence was probably not over fifty vessels 

During the Seasons while the catch of Mackerel was very great about 
a quarter of the fleet of American Mackerel fishermen would land from 
one to three Cargoes of Mackerel in the Strait of Canso each season for 
reshipment to the United States. A vessel of Seventy Tons for exam- 
ple having landed a trip of Mackerel requires or usually takes the fol- 
lowing supplies before going again to the fishing grounds for another 
Cargo viz about three hundred Empty barrels worth about Eighty Cents 
Each from Eighty to one hundred barrels of Salt worth about one Dol- 
lar and a quarter Each, twenty five to thirty barrels of Bait worth about 
five to six Dollars which with provisions and Small Stores about two 
hundred and fifty Dollars would make in all for the fit out about seven 
hundred and fifty Dollars and for a Second trip or fit out about five hun- 
dred Dollars worth of Supplies would be required, The average expend- 
iture of those American fishing Schooners which visit our Ports with- 
out landing Cargoes of fish for reshipment amount to about five hundred 
Dollars each per season in our Provinces, the average expenditure 
therefore of the entire Mackerel fleet of American fishing vessels in the 
British Provinces during the productive Seasons would be about seven 
hundred Dollars each pr Season 

_In consequence of the decreased Catch of Mackerel during the last 

six or Seven Year in the Gulf of St Laurence the expenditure of Ameri 
can fishing Vessels in the British Provinces has been much reduced 

The number of American Vessels engaged in the Codfisheries around 
the Colonial Atlantic Coasts has more than doubled within the last six 
Years about one hundred of these Codfishing vessels call at one point 
or another in the Strait of Canso twice during the Season for a supply 
of ice fresh bait provisions &¢ the average expenditure for that purpose 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION: 3225 


being for about ten Tons ice About thirty Dollars and for about a hun- 
dred barrels of round Herrings or Mackerel about two hundred Dollars 
which with about one hundred Dollars for Wood Clothing occasional 
repairs &c would make in all about three hundred and thirty Dollars 
for each Vessel pr Season 

For many years past little or no use has been made by the American 
fishermen of the privelege of curing fish and drying Nets on our shores 

And I Edward Fox aforesaid do solemnly declare that I conscien- 
tiously believe that the Statements made in the foregoing declaration are 
true and I make this declaration by virtue of the act passed in the 37th 
Year of Her Majestys Reign Entitled an Act for the Suppression of 


Voluntary and Extra judicial Oaths 
THOMAS EDWARD FOX 
Port Hastings Nova Scotia June 6, 1877 
In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 


This is to certify that the above and foregoing Solemn Declaration 
was duly made before me on the 6th day of June 1877. and subscribed 
in my presence by the above named Thomas Edward Fox 

JAMES G. McKEEN 
Justice of the Peace 
No. 150. 


I, William H. McAlpine do solemnly declare—that I reside at Louis- 
burg, Cape Breton, where I am now and since the year 1866 have been 
engaged in General merchandizing and of supplying American fishing 
vessels calling at this Port—that during the last six (6) years the num- 
ber of vessels calling as aforesaid has averaged at least 100 i. e. Ameri- 
can fishing vessels one half of which number are codfishing and the 
other half herring fishing vessels—that these vessels are in the habit 
of calling at different Ports of the Maritime Provinces before they call 
at this Port and of buying supplies’ as them or at most of them—that 
the amount expended at this Port by each of said vessels during said 
period of six years has averaged at least twenty five dollars per season— 
that about one half of said vessels have been annually supplied by me 
and the other half by Mr Gardener of this Port and that the supplies 
for which said expenses were incurred consist of ice, bait, small stores, 
beef, mutton and occasionally other items to a small extent that [am _ 
not aware that the presence of American fishermen in the waters of the 
Dominion of Canada is of any injury to the people thereof, but [ think 
that their presence is of great pecuniary profit to the maritime Provinces 
and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same 
to be true and by virtue of the Act passed in the 37th year of the reign 
of Her Majesty entitled an Act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extra-judicial oaths 

Louisburg C. B. July 17th 1877. 

In presence of W. H. MCALPINE . 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT Picrovu, Nova SCOTIA 
LovuisBurRG OC. B. July 17th 1877. 

I hereby certify that at said Louisburg on said July 17th the above 
named William H. McAlpine made before me and subscribed in my 
presence the foregoing * Solemn Declaration.” 

Attested: OSCAR MALMROS 

U. 8. Consul 


3226 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
Now tol: 


I, Joseph Townsend do solemnly declare—that I reside at Louisburg, 
C. B., that since 1863 I have been employed as Clerk and in the absence 
of the Principal as the manager of the business of first Mr. William E. 
Gardener of this place and afterwards of the “ Louisburg Supply Com. 
pany ” to which Mr. Gardener transferred or sold his said business—that 
said business from 1863 up to the present time has been in the habit of 
supplying American fishing vessels calling at this Port, one half of them 
about being supplied by the above business in which I was and am em- 
ployed and one half by Mr Wm. H. McAlpine of this place—that the 
number of American fishing vessels calling here has averaged during 
the last 5 or 6 years at least one hundred, one half of them codfishing 
the other half herring fishing vessels—that the average expenditure per 
vessel per season during said period has been about $25, perhaps a little 
more, at this port—that the American fishing vessels are in the habit 
of calling at different ports of the Maritime Provinces before they call 
and after they have called at this port and of buying supplies at all or 
most of the Ports where they call—that the supplies purchased by them 
at our Port consist in ice, bait, small stores, beef, mutton and occasionally 
in other items to a small extent—that I think that the presence of Ameri- 
can fishermen on our coasts a great pecuniary advantage to the people 
thereof i. e. of the Provinces while I am not aware that it, that is the 
presence of American fishermen on our coasts is in any repect injurious 
to the interests of the Provinces, and I make this solemn declaration 
conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Act 
passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entitled an Act for the 
suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 


Louisburg C. B. July 17th 1877. 
JOSEPH TOWNSEND 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT Pictou, Nova ScorTiAa 
LouIsBuRG C. B. July 17th 1877 


I hereby certify that at said Louisburg on this 20th day of July 1877 
the above named Joseph Townsend made and subscribed before me the 
foregoing Solemn Declaration 

Attested : OSCAR MALMROS 

U. S. Consul 
No. 152. 


I, James Peeples of Pirate Cove, Guysboro County do solemnly de- 
clare: that I have been a fisherman for the last 33 years I have been 
employed during that time as well on American as on Nova Scotia fish- 
ing vessels, mostly on American vessels prosecuting the Mackerel fish- 
ery in the Gulf of St Lawrence, for the last 5 or 6 years I should have 
said I have not been employed in fishing—according to my experience 
American fishing vessels make no use or but very little use of the privi- 
lege of drying their nets on the Coasts of the Dominion of Canada and do 
not at all cure their fish on these coasts—I do not think that Provincial 
fishermen catch less fish on account of having a fleet of American vessels 
fishing along side of them I rather think the Provincial fishermen catch 
more fish by fishing alongside of an American fleet because the quantity 
of bait thrown keeps the fish on the surface of the water—I have been 
in American fishing vessels prosecuting the fishery in the Gulf of St Law- 
rence that have spent from 1300 to 1500 dollars per season in the Provinces 
in case they had to refit after landing their first catch for re shipment 


fsa 


| 
} 
| 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3227 


to the States—I went this spring employed as cooper in an American 
fishing schooner “ Stagawa” from Gloucester catching herring at the 
Magdalen Islands and I know that her bill of expenses at Pirate Cove 
amounted to about $600 ,°.°,—during the last 6 or 7 years the mackerel 
fishery has much fallen off—I think that about one half only of the 
mackerel that were caught from 10 to 12 years ago have been caught 
during the last 5 years—the last 2 years the mackerel fishery was a 
pretty bad failure—I know that very few if any vessel caught enough 
fish to make more than one trip—I know that the American fishing 
vessels call at a great many Ports all along the coasts of the Dominion 
and expeud much money in these Ports, formerly Yankee money was 
about all the money we saw—the presence of American fishermen on 
the Coasts of these provinces has been a great help to the people of the 
Provinces—they were in the habit of buying socks, mittens, all kinds of 
vegetables, mutton beef, store goods and supplies of all kind, their pres- 
ence was certainly no injary to our people in any respect ; I do not think 
that much fishing will diminish the fish that annually visit the fishing 
grounds—lI rather think that feeding them by throwing out much bait 
attracts them—seine fishing may injure the fisheries, but the real reason 
why in some years mackerel are plentiful and in other years scarce is 
not known, I think that more than one half of the crew of American 
fishing vessels are natives aud residents of the Canadian Provinces; 
and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same 
to be true and by virtue of the Act passed in the 37th year of Her 
Majesty’s reign entitled “An Act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extra-judicial oaths. 

JAMES PEEPLES 
Dated Pirate Cove July 20th, 1877. ¢ 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT Pictou N.S. 
PIRATE CovE July 20th, 1877. 


I hereby certify that on this 20th day of July 1877 the above named 
James Peeples before me, at said Pirate Cove voluntarily made and 
subscribed the foregoing Solemn Declaration. 

Attested : OSCAR MALMROS, 
U. 8. Consul. 
No. 153. 


I, Samuel Peeples of Pirate Cove, Guysboro County do solemnly de- 
clare: that I have been for over 30 years a fisherman I have been 
nearly every summer been engaged on American fishing vessels fishing 
in the Gulf of St Lawrence, during the spring and fall I have been en- 
gaged in boat fishing on my own account—during the last 8 or 9 years 
the mackerel fishery has much fallen off—during the last 6 years the 
catch has not averaged more than $ of what it was 10 or 15 years ago 
and during the last two years it has been almost a total failure—I do 
not think that Provincial fishermen catch any the less fish on account 
of fishing alongside of an American mackerel fishing fleet on the con- 
- trary I think their catch is then greater; I have often seen Provincial 
fishermen in their boats come out to fish alongside of the American fleet 
because they would catch a greater quantity by following the fleet than 
they would by remaining in-shore—American fishermen make but little 
use of the coasts of these Provinces for drying nets and none for curing 
fish—I know that American fishermen call at a great many ports of the 
Canadian Provinces and that they buy more or less at every port where 
they call; they buy beef, mutton, all kinds of vegetables, store goods 


3228 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of all descriptions, homespun cloth, mittens & socks &c and I am of the _ 


opinion that on account of the money they spend they have very mate- 
rially benefitted the people of these Provinces while I am not aware 
that their presence on the coasts of the Dominion has in any respect 
been injurious to the interests of its inhabitants—I think that about 
one half of the crew of the American fishing fleet is composed of natives 
and residents of the Maritime Provinces—Al1 fat mackerel as far as I 
know goes to the United States and I make this solemn declaration 
conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of an Act 
passed during the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entitled an Act for 
the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 


Dated Pirate Cove July 20th 1877. 
SAMUEL P PEEPLES 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT 
Pictou, Nova ScorTia 
PIRATE OOVE July 20th 1877. 

I hereby certify that at Pirate Cove, County of Guysboro’, Nova Sco- 
tia, the above named Samuel A. Peeples, on this 20th day of July 1877 
voluntarily made before me and subscribed in my presence the forego- 
ing “Solemn Declaration. 

Attested: 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 
No. 154. 


I, Isaiah Crittenden do solemnly declare that I am a British subject, 
a native of Nova Scotia and living at Pirate Cove Guysboro’ County 
Nova Scotia Iam 42 years old and have been employed in fishing every 
summer since I was 13 years old, during the last 27 summers I have 
always been engaged as one of the crew of American fishing vessels; 
the American fishing vessels hardly ever dry their nets or cure fish on 
the Coasts of the Dominion of Canada about 40 to 50 American herring 
fishing vessels have annually visited the coasts of the Provinces of the 
Dominion of Canada their crew is about 7 or 8 men each vessel—théir 
catch per vessel has been about 600 barrels during the last 6 years each 
season—from 8 to 10 years back the American mackerel fishing fleet 
consisted of from 300 to 500 sails per season in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
the mackerel fishing vessels average about 12 to 14 men as a crew 
during the last 6 years and particularly the last 2 the mackerels have 
been getting very scarce the reason being according to my opinion and 
that of many old fishermen that the scarcity of bait found by the mack- 
erel induced them to go to other grounds—the bait was scarce because 
the American fishing fleet had been driven away by the Dominion Rev- 
enue Cutters during the fishery troubles of 1870 or I think it was 1871 
from that time the mackerel fishery began to fall off—the same falling 
off took place when the Revenue Vessels of Great Britain interfered 
with the American fishermen about the years 1853 or 1855 and the 
Americans in consequence resorted in but small numbers to the Gulf of 
St Lawrence—during the last 5 years according to the best estimate I 
can form the American fishing fleet fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of 
St Lawrence has consisted of about 250 sails during the season that is 
if I strike an average of their number during that period—the Ameri- 
can mackerel fishing vessels begin to arrive in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
about the beginning of June in each year in small numbers, but the 
greater number arrive only after the first week in July or even as 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3229 


late as the beginning of August—the herring fishing vessels arrive 
at the Magdalen Islands about the Ist of May, they remain there as 
a rule about 2 to 3 weeks unless the fish happen to be scarce there when 
they often go to the coast of Newfoundland—Generally the herring fleet 
makes but one trip a season and after their return home fish off the 
American coast for cod or mackerel or sometimes they go to the Gulf of ~ 
St Lawrence—the American herring vessels have considerably benefited 
the People on this Strait, besides buying supplies of all kinds, they 
nearly all hire from two to three boats to go with them to the Magdalen 
Islands paying about 30 dollars a trip for a man and his boat and ten 
dollars a boat without a man, the average number of the crew of 
American herring fishing vessels when they arrive at the Strait consists 
of from 4 to 5 men and the hire the rest here paying about $20 a man 
for the run to the Magdalen Islands and back—the mackerel fishing 
vessels expend likewise a great deal of money in the Maritime 
Provinces as they call at a great many ports and spend money in every 
port—as long as [ can remember has the trade of the merchants on the 
Strait of Canso principally consisted in selling goods of all kinds to 
American fishermen and the people of the Strait of Canso would have 
seen but very little money if it had not been for the money spent by 
American fishing vessels—On the whole I don’t think that pro- 
vincial fishermen. get a smaller catch of fish on account of the 
presence of American mackerel fishing vessels in the Gulf of St 
Lawrence—Generally and almost without exception the fishing of 
American Mackerel fishing vessels up to the middle of August or be- 
ginning of September is done outside the 3 mile limit from shore and 
after that until the latter part of October they mostly fish inshore—the 
only fishing prosecuted by American fishermen off the Coasts of the 
Dominion of Canada is the herring, the mackerel and the codfishing, 
the codfish is all caught outside the limits, off shore. During the times 
when mackerel fishing was still good the American fishing vessels 
would ship from 300 to 350 men each season from the Strait of Canso 
and Cape Bre!on I think that the crew of American fishing vessels is 
composed of about $ natives of the Maritime Provinces who continue to 
reside in the Provinces and are British subjects—In my opinion the out- 
fitting of an American fishing vessel for the Gulf of St Lawrence costs 
about $300 to $400 more tlran the outfitting of a fishing vessel of the 
Same tonnage in the Province of Nova Scotia; And I make this solemn 
declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue 
of an Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled An 
Act for the suppression of voluntary aud extra judicial oaths. 
Dated Pirate Cove July 21st 1877. 
ISAIAH ORITTENDEN 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT 
Pictou, NovA SCOTIA 
PIRATE COVE July 21st 1877. 


I hereby certify that on this 21st day of July 1877 at Pirate Cove, 
Guysboro’ County, Nova Scotia, the above named Isaiah Crittenden 
voluntarily made before me aud subscribed in my presence the above 
and foregoing ‘ Solemn Declaration.” 

Attested : 

OSCAR MALMROS, 
U. S. Consul 


3230 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. 155. 


I, E. Aug. Crittenden at Pirate Cove, Strait of Canso do solemnly 


declare that: I have followed the business of fishing for 44 seasons, I am 
a British subject & have always resided in Nova Scotia—that during 
the whole period of 44 years I have every summer been employed in 
American fishing vessels that during the last six years the mackerel 
fisheries in the Gulf of St Lawrence have much fallen off; it has dur- 
ing those six years certainly been not more than one half (4) of what it 
was before; the cause of this falling off is I think entirely unknown— 
the annual number of American fishing vessels of every description in 
the Gulf of St Lawrence during the last 5 years has averaged I think 
50 sails fifty sails while ten years ago or longer they numbered from 400 
to 500 sails—the average tonnage of an American fishing vessel is 
about sixty (60) tons, a vessel of this size is manned by a crew of 13 to 
14 men; fully one half of the crew of the American fishing vessels are 
subjects of and residents of the Dominion of Canada;—the American 
make hardly any use of the privilege of drying nets and curing fish on 
the Coasts of the Dominion—I do not believe from my experience that 
the catch of Provincial fishermen is smaller when fishing alongside of 
an American fishing fleet on the contrary I think that more fish are 
brought to the surface and caught when a number of vessels are fish- 
ing together—during the last two or three years the American herring 
fishing fleet in the waters on the coasts of the Dominion have num- 
bered about 20 to 25a year, in former years it numbered about 40 or 
50 sails—during the last 3 years the herring fishing Am. vessels have 
averaged per vessel about 400 to 500 barrels per vessel, in former years 
that is 8 or 10 years ago they averaged about one thousand barrels the 
codfish caught by the Americans is all caught outside of a line three 
(3) miles from shore—the halibut or other fish caught by Americans off 
the coasts of the Dominion of Canada is totally insignificant and not 
worth mentioning—the American fishermen expend a great deal of 
money in the Provinces for beef, mutton, potatoes & other vegetables 
and supplies of every description as they are in the habit of visiting 
many ports of the Dominion in succession from the time they leave the 
American coast until they arrive on the fishing grounds and during the 
whole season while they are in the Gulf of St Lawrence and they are 
buying more or less at every port they call at—I think the average ex- 
-penditure of a seventy ton American fishing vessel in the several ports 
of the maritime Province may be safely estimated at $200 per season, 
unless they land their fare for re-shipment to the States in which case 
the expenses for a re-outfit would be of course much larger—a fishing 
vessel of a size which costs here about $500 would cost about $1500 to 
$1600 in the States and the outfit in the States is at least } higher than 
the cost of outfitting a fishing vessel of the same tonnage in Nova 
Scotia—I think that the presence of American fishermen on the coasts 
ot the maritime Provinces is a great pecuniary benefit to them i. e. the 
Provinces and not in any respect injurious to the interests of the Peo- 
ple of the Provinces; and I make this solemn declaration conscien- 
tiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed 
during the 37th year of her Majestys reign entituled “An Act for the 
suppression of voluntary and extrajudicial oaths. 
Dated Pirate Cove July 19th 1877. 


his 
E. AUG. + CRITTENDEN 
mark 
In presence of: 


OSCAR MALMROS 


| 
| 
! 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3231 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT 
Pictou, Nova Scotia 
PIRATE COVE July 19th 1877 


I hereby certify that on this 19th day of July 1877 the above named 
E. Augustus Crittenden at Pirate Cove before me made and subscribed 
the foregoing “* Solemn Declaration.” 

Attested : 

OSCAR MALMROS 
- U. S. Consul. 
No. 156. 


I Ebenezer C Peeples of the County of Guysborough in the Prov- 
ince of Nova Scotia Do Solemly declare that I am a British subject, 
that I am by occupation a fisherman. Have been fishing in American 
fishing vessels for the last thirty six Summers during the Spring and 
fall I have often been engaged fishing in Boats inshore on my own ac- 
count the Vessels in which I was employed prosecuted the Mackerel 
fishery in the Bay of St. Lawrence during the last five or six years 
only about one fourth of the Mackerel were caught during the season 
that were caught in former Years, say fifteen Years ago and prior to that 

According to my estimate three quarters of the Mackerel caught by 
American fishing vessels are caught outside of the three Mile limit from 
shore, not more than one quarter being caught inshore 

I do not think that the Catch of Provincial fishermen are any the less 
because an American fleet are fishing in the same vicinity 

The cause why mackerel are very plentiful in some seasons and very 
Searce in other seasons is not known 

At least one half of the Crews of American fishing Vessel are com- 
posed ot Natives and residents of the Maritime Provinces of Canada 

The American fishing fleet derive little or no advantage from the 
privelege of drying nets and Curing fish on our Coasts as they are not 
in the habit of making use of the privelege, occasionally the may cure 
an insignificant quantity of Herrings at the Magdalene Islands 

During the last five Years the average number of American Mackerel 
fishing vessel averaged about two hundred sail in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence 

The average tonnage of these Vessels is I think about fifty Tons 

The presence of American fishing vessels on the Atlantic Coasts of the 
Dominion has greatly benefited its people owing to the purchase by the 
American fisbermen of supplies of every description and the Employ- 
ment given on board these vessels to a large number of people belong- 
ing to the Provinces 

The number of the Crew of an averaged sized, American fishing Ves- 
sels is about fourteen 

The Codfish caught by American fishing Vessels are taken entirely 
outside the three mile limit 
_ The average number of Crew on board Herring fishing Vessels are 
about Eight. the Herring caught by these American Vessels is nearly 
all caught on the Coast of the Magdalene Islands About fifty vessels 
from the United States go to the Magdalen Island for Herrings every 
Spring. sometimes some of them go the Island of Anticosti and the 
Newtoundland shore when Herrings are scarce at the Magdalers. The 
average catch of these vessels have been for the last five Years about 
seven hundred barrels Herring each Vessel 

Mackerel Herring and Codfish are the only fish that as far as I know 
the Americans are in the habit of catching in the Gulf of St Laurence 


3232 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the 
same to be true and by virtue of the Act passed in the 37th Year of Her 
Majestys Reign entitled an act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extrajudicial Oaths 


Pirate Cove Strait Canso July 20. 1877 
EBENEZER C PEEPLES 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT 
Pictou, Nova Scotia 
PIRATE COVE July 20th 1877. 


I hereby certify that at Pirate Cove on this 20th day of July 1877 
before me and in my presence the above named Ebenezer C. Peeples 
voluntarily made and subscribed the foregoing “ Solemn Declaration. 


Attested: 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. 8. Consul 
No. 157. 


I, Samuel Peeples of Port Mulgrave on the Strait of Canso do sol- 
emnly declare that I am 34 years old that for 16 years up to within 5 
years I have been one of the crew of some American Mackerel or cod- 
fishing vessel—that I am of the opinion that nearly if not fully two 


thirds (3) of the crew of American fishing vessels are subjects and in- - 


habitants of the British North American Provinces—that the Provincial 
fishermen catch quite as many mackerel when fishing alongside of an 
American Mackerel fishing fleet as they would catch in case there were 
no Americar fishing vessels on the Mackerel grounds of the British 
North American coasts—until within about the last 6 years the Ameri- 
can Mackerel fishing vessels began to arrive on the fishing grounds of 
the Gulf of St Lawrence at the beginning of June but during the last 
5 or 6 years but very few arrived until after the 4th of July and during 
the present season they have but just now arrived in any numbers—the 
reason why they have during the last 6 years arrived so late in the Gulf 
of St Lawrence is that the Americans have had a very good catch dur- 
ing the early part of the summer season off their own coasts—up to 
about the middle of July the mackerel in the Gulf are rather poor they 
don’t begin to fatten until about the middle of July—about 3d of the 
entire catch of the American Mackerel catching fleet in the Gulf of St 
Lawrence is caught off-shore that is out side of the 3 mile line from shore 
and only about 4 is caught inside that limit—the codfish caught by the 
American cod fishing vessels is all caught outside the 3 mile limit on 
the grand banks of Newfoundland and other places on the high seas— 
the Americans do not dry their nets on the coasts of the British North 
American Provinces or at least but very rarely and do not at all cure 
their fish on these coasts—I consider the presence of American fishing 
vessels on our coasts and in our ports as of the greatest benefit to the 
inhabitants of the Provinces as they spend much money in all the ports 
where they call and they are in the habit of calling ata great many 
Provincial Ports in the course of the season in fact when we have not 
the custom of the American fishing vessels in the Strait of Canso there 
is but very little business done of any kind and I make this solemn dec- 
laration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of 
an Act passed during the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entitled an 
Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 


Dated at Port Mulgrave July 21st 1877. 
SAMUEL H PEEPLES 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3233 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT PiIcToU, NovA Scotia, 
PoRT MULGRAVE July 21. 1877 


This is to certify that at said Port Mulgrave on this 21st day of July 
the above named Samuel H. Peeples voluntarily made before me and 
personally subscribed the foregoing ‘Solemn Declaration. 


Attested : 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U.S. Consul 
No. 158. 


I, James McNair do solemnly declare that I live at Port Mulgrave on 
the Strait of Canso—that I am 48 years old—that ever since 1849 I have 
been fishing every season except the two last seasons, mostly on Ameri- 
can vessels but sometimes also on vessels belonging to the Strait of 
Canso—the Americans do not make use of the coasts of the Dominion 
of Canada to dry nets or cure fish except that the American herring 
fishers sometimes dry their seines on the Magdalen Islands—the cod- 
fishing is carried on by Americans altogether off shore—the proportion 
of mackerel caught inshore by the Americans averages I think about 4 
of their entire catch—I do not think that the Provincial fishermen catch 
a smaller quantity of mackerel on account of fishing alongside of an 
American fleet—I think that mackerel fishing by seinesought to be pro- 
hibited as it breaks up the schools of mackerel and injures the fishing 
only a few American vessels however fish with seines—indeed I do not 
think that fishing with seines is profitable as those at least that the 
Americans use can not be employed in shore to advantage—the Ameri- 
cans often land their seines because they find the fishing by hook more 
profitable—I think that at least one half of the crew of Am. fishing 
vessels are natives of and reside in the several Provinces of the Dominion 
of Canada—the mackerel fishery has very much fallen off during the last 
5 years or so—the reason why the mackerel catch has been poor 2 sea- 
sons ago is that during that season the mackerel were very much chased 
by the horse mackerel a fish from 5 to 8 feet long preying upon the mack- 
erel; the mackerels shift and take new routes during some seasons ; 
they do not regularly return to the breeding grounds like the salmon— 
they, the mackerel were very plentiful, they say last season on the coasts 
of Newfoundland while they were scarce in the Gulf of St Lawrence— 
the only fish caught by Americans off the Atlantic coasts of the Domin- 
ion either in-shore or off shore are mackerel, codfish and herring, to a 
small extent however the Americans prosecute also the balibut fishing— 
they do not employ more than from 6 to 8 vessels in halibut tishing and 
these generally fish off the Coasts'of Anticosti And Ido make this 
solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by 
virtue of the Act passed during the 37th year of Her Majestys reign en- 
titled “‘An Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 

Dated Port Mulgrave July 21.st 1877. 

JAMES McNAIR 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT Pictou N.S. 
PorT MULGRAVE July 21st 1877. 
I hereby certify that the above named James MeNair on this 21st day 
of July 1877, at Port Mulgrave, personally made before me and sub- 
scribed in my presence voluntarily the above “ Solemn Declaration. 


Attested : 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S&. Consul 
203 F 


3234 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 159. 


I, John Murray, do solemnly declare that I was born and always have 
been living at Port Mulgrave on the Strait of Canso ; that I am 49 years 
of age—that since I was 19 years of age I have been engaged in fish- 
ing during the summer seasons—that with the exception of two 


seasons I have always shipped in American fishing vessels during those. 


2 season I was in Provincial vessels—the Americans do not dry their 
nets on the coasts of the Dominion except occasionally for half a day 
nor do they cure their fish on these coasts—-the crew is about 4 composed of 
natives of the British North American Provinces who are still residing 
in the Provinces and are of course british subjects—the Americans catch 
all their codfish on the banks or off-shore. I do not think that Provin- 
cial fishermen catch any smaller number of fish on account of fishing 
alongside of American fleets of mackerel fishers—the mackerel fishery 
has much fallen off during the last 5 years and especially during the 
last 2 years it has almost been an entire failure—the cause of the falling 
off of the mackerel fishery is not known—during the present season 
mackerel promise to be in fair quantities in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
from all I have lately heard—the American fishermen i. e. mackerel 
fishers begin to come in June but of late years they don’t arrive on the 
fishing grounds ‘in any number until after the 4th of July—the mack- 
erel are poor until after they have spawned that is about the middle of 
July—they are just getting fat now—the Americans catch by far the 
larger quantity of mackerel outside of the three mile line from shore, I 
should not think that the Americans catch more than one fourth of their 
entire catch of mackerel in-shore that is inside the 3 mile limit—the 
cost of outfit of American vessels engaged in the fisheries is considera- 
bly higher that that of Provincial fishing vessels, their outfit is much 
better too than that of the Provincials—fat mackerel and fat herring 
caught by Provincial fishing vessels are nearly all sold in the United 
States, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing 
the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year 
of Her Majesty’s reign entituled an Act for the suppressionof voluntary 
and extra-judicial oaths. 
Dated Port Mulgrave July 21st. 1877. 
JOHN MURRAY 


UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT PICTOU, N.S. 
PoRT MULGRAVE July 21st 1877. 

I hereby certify that at Port Mulgrave on this 21st day of July the 
above named John Murray voluntarily made before me and subscribed 
in my presence the foregoing ‘Solemn Declaration. ’ 

Attested : 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul. 
No. 160. 


I, John H. Ingraham, of North Sydney, Cape Breton, Merchant and 
Trader, do solemnly depose and say : 

That I have been doing business as a trader and general merchant at 
North Sydney, Cape Breton, for the last twenty years. 


During that period the port of Sydney has been visited annually by © 


a number of vessels engaged in prosecuting the cod and mackerel fish- 


ery, belonging to the United States of America. Withia the last five | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3235 


years the average number of American fishing vessels frequenting this 
port has been not less than fifty annually. 

The expenditure of the said American fishing fleet with me as a mer- 
chant during the last five years has been as follows: 


UN ig FOG SON aig cic lc tard n 4 sig 6 08 8G Tok Sin cle dais ois te Sanee ea bwae tess 121. 
Rim PSTN ON rat ous coi om iis Ai wie ag Ore eS so sie inivis see aon 511. 

$632 

MESVE OPOS BEG iy eae Sa gins tons ra oe Side ae we a we oie e Pelee on: 15 
OF NOOR cba sok so © cole ee awe oe can oh week = ETO. 
UBM occa aa Reis Saag aes Saleem ems Oe oem sees 2475 

$2600 

Ry LOE RS ALG cocoa alfa 0/s'a- 1 Voncalp Vala a antnieed paarn meat sgieea aaa 83. 
WEISS i calncitss sick so teas Gra ible ats spi caikien ain lsae ae 12 

Oe UN OTION is sn = 510% PC Peet oe ‘cen wtih Kate om as eee ate 2590 

$2685 

RET EN ROE SREY Sosa ig Sg ah ck oh ia SNM aie Sak gia bale aa eo alnea gacaale 17- 
RAPA SAEIR(LPVAR oc ocho cca cn ciel who lh Re Eee oes oe 1980 

$1997 

SEG TOP WA Gc. 0'5 ors viskt.c Sa oe ee 8 pie eraacs eed ea aretha tad casi laeicaie® 44 
SENN Sain Device ode ieees sae anes Ace o se Sex terse 27. 

cS SEWITTOR coe ek amc eon os Hben se pawinesa mck asendes 2100 

$2171 


There are no fishing vessels employed at present out of this port, the 
fishery being entirely conducted by shore boats, and fishermen earn only 
@ precarious living 

According to my Experience nearly one half of the crews of Ameri- 
can fishing vessels frequenting this port are natives of Nova Scotia and 
Cape Breton. 

I consider that the presence of American fishing vessels on our 
grounds, isof great pecuniary benefit to this country. 

Dated at North Sydney C. B. this 18th day of July 1877 

JOHN L INGRAHAM 


B. ARCHIBALD J.P 


Sworn to before me 


No. 161. 


I, William H. Moore, of North Sydney Cape Breton, Merchant and 
Trader, do solemnly depose and say: 

That I have been doing business as a trader and General Merchant 
at North Sydney Cape Breton for the last twenty years. 

During that period the port of Sidney has been visited annually by a 
number of vessels engaged in prosecuting the Cod and Mackerel fishery, 
belonging to the United States of America. Within the last five years 
the average number of American fishing vessels frequenting this port 
has not been less than fifty annually. 


x 


3236 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


The expenditure of the said American fishing fleet with me as a Mer- 
chant during the last five years has been as follows: 


In 1872, for Supplies... .-- 22-6. e ee cece cee eee een eee cee tee 100. 
t6-4873 for Supplies. <<. osc e Soinw cece amelie a awieiare 3314. 
té(Bait 66 Salh. <osas2 eases tee eos we aemet 180 3494. 
1874-6 Sappes is 2sacccs sts noee ccs acer tecteseentesiaraess 80. 
1875. ©  SappWeOss csc sae awd wen a eect este sar nietarcine 862. 
1876). © SUN pPleRa sas osc 2 tse ne oe eces cate a ame cee ee pices 81. 


There are no fishing vessels employed out of this port. The fishery is 
prosecuted to some extent at this port, but altogether by Shore boats,- 
and fishermen make only a precarious living. 

According to my experience nearly one half of the crews of American 
fishing Vessels frequenting this port are natives of Nova Scotia and 
Cape Breton. 

I consider that the presence of Ameérican fishing vessels on our 
grounds is of great pecuniary benefit to this country. 

Dated at North Sydney C. B. this 18th day of July 1877. 

W. H. MOORE 

Sworn to before me. 

B. ARCHIBALD J. P. 


No. 162. 


I Allan McDonald do solemnly declare that I was born and am living 
about 1 mile from Cape Jack Antigonish County, Nova Scotia—I am 
41 years of age—I have been mackerel fishing for about the last 25 
years partly in American and partly in Provincial vessels—I do not 
think that Americans dry their nets or cure their fish or but seldom on 
the coasts of the British Provinces—the codfish caught by American 
vessels is caught on the banks or other places on the high seas, at any 
rate they catch them but seldom in-shore—the only fish caught by 
Americans off the Coasts of British America are codfish, mackerel hali- 
but and herring—during good seasons the American mackerel fleet in 
the Gulf of St Lawrence consists of about (500) i. ve hundred sails but 
during the last few years there were but few, the catch of mackerel hav- 
ing much fallen off—last year I don’t think there were more than sixty 
American Mackerel fishing vessels in the Gulf and I don’t think that 
they have averaged more during the last three years—the American 
herring fleet on the Atlantic coasts of the British Provinces has aver- 
aged during the last 5 years from 30 to 40 sails a season—I have never 
seen more than 10 to 14 sails of American halibut fishing vessel off the 
Coasts of the British Provinces the American codfishing fleet on the 
grand banks of Newfoundland is large, I have seen there as many as 
four hundred vessels at a time—I have been codfishing, herring fishing 
and mackerel fishing, we often go out early in spring codfishing or her- 
ring fishing and afterwards mackerel fishing in the Gulf—I know from 
my own experience that all these American fishing vessels that I have 
mentioned are in the habit of calling each at different ports in the Prov- 
inces during each season and of leaving very considerable money in 
each port they call at—I think I have a pretty correct idea of what 
their expenses amount to and according to my estimate the average ex- 
peuses of an American fishing vessel in the several ports of the British 
Provinces amount during the season to about three hundred or four 
hundred dollars—I should judge that about one half of the crew of the 


| 


| 
| 


be 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3237 


American fishing fleet fishing off the Coasts of the British Provinces 
consist of natives who are at the same time residents of the Provinces 
and I do not refer to those who have removed their residence to Glou- 
eester and other places in the United States—I do not think that the 
presence of the American fishing vessels in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
lessens the chances of Colonial fishermen to catch fish on the contrary 
my experience has taught me that mackerel are more easily perceived 
when there are fishing vessels distributed all over the Galf, then when 
they rise at one place the others see it by their spy-glasses and join the 
vessels where the fish rise and all get their share of fish, when there are 
but few vessels on the fishing grounds they may not at all get to know 
at what spots to find the mackerel—the latter also rise better when more 
bait is thrown out than can be done by a few vessels—I have no doubt 
that the presence of the American fishermen on the coasts of these 
Provinces has, been of great benefit to them, nearly half our fishermen 
might almost starve if it was not for the employment given them by the 
American vessels, And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously 
believing the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during tue 
37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled an Act for the suppression 
of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 
- Dated Cape Jack July 24. 1877. 
his 
ALLAN + McDONALD 
mark. 
In presence of 

JAMES G. McKEEN 

OSCAR MALMROS 
PROVINCE OF NoVA SCOTIA 

COUNTY OF ANTIGONISH 


I hereby Certify that the above named Allan McDonald voluntarily 
made and affixed his mark of hand before me at Cape Jack Settlement 
in Said County of Antigonish the foregoing solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 24th day of July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
: Notary Public 
No. 163. 


I, Donald McDonald (Duncan’s son) do solemnly declare: that I am 
living about 7 of a mile south of Cape Jack Light Housein Antigonish 
County, Nova Scotia—that I am 69 years old and have been fishing for 
the last 50 years with the exception of one summer and during that 
year I went out in the fall mackerel fishing—I have been on American 
and Nova Scotian fishing vessels mackerel and codfishing mostly how- 
ever mackerel fishing—the American fishermen do not dry their nets or 
cure their fish on the coasts of the British Provinces—I think that about 
one half of the crew of the American fishing vessels fishing off the 
Coasts of the British Provinces are british subjects and residing in these 
Provinces—I think that Colonial fishing vessels catch pretty nearly as 
many mackerel when fishing alongside of an American mackerel fleet 
as when fishing alone or as they would «lo if there were no American 
fishing vessels in the Gulf—codfish is all caught by Americans off-shore 
on the banks of Newfoundland the in-shore fishing by American fish- 
ermen on the Coasts of these provinces has not been of any appreciable 
injury to Colonial fishermen—while the money expended by them on 
our coasts for beef, mutton, potatoes and other vegetables mittens, socks, 


homespun cloths and supplies furnished by our merchants has been of 


; 4 


3238 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


great advantage to our people—that all the fat mackerel and the greater 
quantity of the fat herring finds its only market in the United States, 
some of the fat herring goes to Canada—And I make this solemn declar- 
ation conscientiously believing the same to true and by virtue of an 
Act passed during the 37th year of her Majestys reign entitled an Act 
for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 

Dated Cape Jack July 24. 1877. 


his 
DONALD + McDONALD (Dunean’s son) 
mark 
In presence of 
OSCAR MALMROS 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF ANTIGONISH. 


I hereby Certify that the above named Donald McDonald (Dunecan’s 
Son) voluntarily made and subscribed by affixing his mark before me 
at Cape Jack Settlement in said County of Antigonish the foregoing 
Solemn declaration. 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 24th day of July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 


No. 164. 


I Michael Crispo do solemnly declare that I reside at Harbor 
Bouché Antigonish County, Nova Scotia, that during about 20 years I 
have been engaged in the fishing business during that period I have 
owned several fishing vessels during One time I owned 4 fishing 
vessels—my principal business has been in mackerel but also to some 
extent in the codfishing business I have exported my fish to Boston 
New York, Philadelphia, Halifax and Montreal—the United States are 
the only market for No 1 and No two mackerel and most of the fat herring 
is sent to the States—since the duty was taken off fish in the States the 
average profit in the fish business is from 5 to 8 per cent on the capi- 
tal and labor invested in the business—during the period of say 3 or 5 
years preceeding the taking off of the duty on fish in the States my 
experience has been that money and capital invested in the fishing busi- 
ness has returned hardly any profit, at the least the profit has been a 
very insignificant one and I make this statement conscientiously be- 
lieving the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 
37th year of her Majestys reign entitled ‘“ An Act for the suppression 
of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths 

Dated July 25th 1877. 

MICHAEL CRISPO 

In prsence of: 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U S Consul 


PROVINCE OF NOVASCOTIA 
CoUNTY OF ANTIGONISH 


I hereby Certify that the foregoing named Michael Crispo voluntarily 
made and Subscribed before me at Harbour Bouché in said County of 
Antigonish the foregoing Solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 25th day of July 1877 

JAMES G McKEEN 

(Seal.) Notary Publie 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3239 
No. 165. 


I Patrick Webb of Harbor Bouché do solemnly declare that I live 
at said Harbor Bouché, Antigonish County, Nova Scotia, that I have 
been fishing for Mackerel for some years—I am now engaged in the fish 
business, I own one fishing vessel myself exclusively and own an inter- 
est in three other fishing vessels, I also supply a number of fishermen 
and they pay me after their trips by giving me their catch of fish at cur- 
rent prices—The best estimate I am able to make at a rough calculation 
is that the profits of the fish business during the last 5 years have aver- 
aged about five per cent per annuum on the capital and labor invested in 
the fisheries Ido think that Colonial fishermen catch about as many 
fish when fishing together with american vessels in the Gulf as when 
fishing alone I know that the American fishermen in the course of the 
season call at many of the Colonial harbours and spend much money 
and I think that on the whole the presence of the American fisher- 
men on our Coasts has been a great pecuniary benefit to the People 
of the Provinces And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously 
believing the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 
37th year of Her Majestys reign entituled An Act for the suppression 
of voluntary and extra judicial oaths 

Dated at Harbor Bouché July 25th 1877. 

PATRICK WEBB 

In presence of 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF ANTIGONISH 


I hereby Certify that the above named Patrick Webb voluntarily 
made and subscribed before me at Habour Bouché in said County of 
Antigonish the foregoing solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 25th day July 1877 

JAMES G. McCKEEN 

(Seal.) Notary Public 

No. 166. 


I James Gillis do solemnly declare: that I am .67 years of age that 1 
am living about 3 of a mile from Cape Jack Light House, that for 37 
years I have been mackerel fishing, two seasons I have been cod fishing— 
I don’t think that that Provincial fishing vessels catch a smaller quantity 
of mackerel on account of fishing alongside of an American Mackerel 
fishing fleet-—during some seasons the American fishing vessels can do 
better in-shore at other seasons they can do better off-shore that outside 
the three mile limit from shore—taken one season with another I think 
the Americans catch the greater portion of their mackerel outside of 
the 3 mile limit from shore—I know that during the last 5 or 6 years the 
mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has very much fallen off 
but can not give an estimate of how much that is in what proportion 
compared with former years it has fallen off—According to my opinion 
and experience I think that about 4 of the crew of the American fishing 
fleet that comes to the Gulf of St Lawrence is composed of natives of 
the, British Provinces who are also living in these Provinces—some but 
a few only of the American fishermen occasionally dry their nets and 
cure fish on the coasts of these Provinces—I have no doubt that the 
presence of American fishermen on these coasts and in our harbors is of 
very great pecuniary profit to the Peoples of the Provinces on account 


3240 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the purchase by them of all kinds of supplies and country produce 
and because they give employment to great many of our fishermen and 
other people—that No. 1 and No. 2 mackerel and most of the fat herring 
caught by Colonial fishermen finds its only market in the United States 
a part of the fat herring however is sent to Canada, and I make this — 
solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by 
virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year of Her Majestys reign en- 
tituled an Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 
Dated Cape Jack July 24th 1877. 


his 
JAMES + GILLIES 
mark 
In presence of 
JAMES G. MCKEEN 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF ANTIGONISH 


I hereby Certify that the above named James Gillies voluntarily made 
and Subscribed by affixing his mark before me at Cape Jack settlement 
in Said County of Antigonish the foregoing Solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 24th day of July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
Notary Public 
No. 167. 


I, William Embree do solemnly declare: that I live at a place called 
Bear Island, on the Strait of Canso about 2 miles below Port Hawkes- 
bury in the County of Richmond, Nova Scotia—that I am by occupation 
a fisherman—that I am 55 years old and have been out fishing evy sea- 
son since I was 18 years old—that Ihave never been employed in an 
American fishing vessel—that I have been fishing in the Gulf of St Law- 
rence around Sydney the Magdalen Islands and other places in the 
Gulf—that I have fished alongside of American vessels many a time 
A never thought that I caught a smaller number of fish on account of 
fishing alongside of the American fleet-—American Mackerel fishing 
vessels begin to arrive in the month of June in each year but in small 
numbers only—thev do not come as arule before the first week in July— 
this year they are but just now beginning to arrive and I don’t think 
that the bulk will arrive before August—the mackerel begin to fatten 
up from about the middle of July—as far as I know the Americans do 
not dry their nets or but very rarely and do not cure their fish on the 
coasts of the British North American Provinces—the Americans catch 
their codfish all on the banks & other places on the high seas—as near 
as I can come to it I think that about two thirds (3) of the entire catch 
of mackerels by the American fleet in the Gulf of St Lawrence is caught 
outside of the 3 mile line from shore and about 4 in-shore—I think that 
between 4 and 3 of the crew of the American fishing fleet is composed 
of natives and residents of the British American Provinces—the aver- 
age number of the crew of an American Mackerel fishing vessel is about 
13 to 14 the crew of an American herring fishing vessel averages about 
8 men—the mackerel fishing in the Gulf of St Lawrence has much fallen 
off—formerly that is ten or fifteen years ago there were as many as 700 
to 800 Am. vessels counting each return of the vessels to the Bay as a 
new vessel—fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St Lawrence while dur- 
ing the last 6 years taking an average their number during the season 
has not I think been more than 200—I am convinced that the presence 
of American fishermen in the ports and on the coasts of the Dominion 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3241 


is of great pecuniary advantage to the people thereof and in no respect 
an injury to the interests of the people of the Provinces—I do not think 
that the American fishing vessels have driven away the mackerel from 
our fishing grounds, because not only mackerel but herring have got to 
be very scarce in the Strait of Canso and all around the coasts of Nova 
Scotia and Prince Edward Island and yet the Americans have never 
fished here for herring; and 1 do solemnly declare that I believe con- 
scientiously that the foregoing statement or declaration is true and that 
i make this declaration by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year 
of Her Majesty’s reign entituled an Act for the suppression of voluntary 
and extra-judicial oaths. 

Dated July 23d 1877 Bear Island, N.S. ; 
WILLIAM EMBREE 
In presence of 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U. 8. Uonsul 
PROVINCE OF NovA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


I hereby Certify that the above named William Embree voluntarily 
made and subscribed before me at Bear Island settlement in said County 
of Richmond the foregoing Solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 23rd day of July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. MCKEEN 
Notary Public: 
No. 168. 


I Charles Steward do solemnly declare—that I live at Bear Island 
Settlement about 5 miles below Hawkesbury on the Strait of Canso— 
that I am 46 years old—that I have been fishing ever since I was 12 years 
old and have followed nothing but that—about 7 or 8 years I have been 
mackerel fishing during the summer—in the spring I have always been 
net-fishing in boats—I was 3 seasons in American Mackerel fishing ves- 
sels—they generally come from home after the 4th of July and stay up 
to about the middle or last of September—the mackerel fishing has not 
been very productive during the last 5 or 6 years, the last 2 or 3 years 
the catch of mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has been very poor 
—while I was in the American fishing vessels they caught at least 3 of 
their entire catch outside a line 3 miles from shore in fact most mackerel 
were caught by them from 6 to 7 miles from shore—the greater the fish- 
ing fleet is the more the mackerel are stirred up and brought to the 
surface of the water and I don’t think that Colonial vessel catch any the 
less mackerel on account of fishing alongside of an American fleet—I 
think the seine fishing is injurious to fishing as it breaks up the schools 
of mackerel—there have been but few American seine fishers in the 
Gulf and they never succeeded very well in the Gulf—seine fishing 
ought to be prohibited—I think about 4 of the crew of American fishing 
vessels is composed of natives of the British Provinces who continue to 
reside in the Provinces—The American fishermen do not, as far as I 
know dry their nets or cure fish on the Coasts of the British North 
American Provinces—during the last 6 years I should think the Ameri- 
can mackerel fleet in the Gulf has not averaged over fifty sails a season 
—during the period of from 10 to 15 years ago the American mackerel 
fleet in the Gulf averaged I should think about 300 sails—the codfishing 
is prosecuted by the Americans exclusively outside the 3 mile limit from 
shore, mostly on the banks of Newfoundland—the American herring 
fleet during the last 10 years has averaged about 20 sails off the Coasts 


3242 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the British Provinces, they prosecute the fishery at the Magdalen 
Islands from about the first of May and stay from two to three weeks 
when they return home—they make but one trip during the year—their 
average catch per vessel is about 1000 barrels I think—herring, cod 
and mackerel are as far as I know the only fish caught by American 
vessels off the Coasts of the British North American Colonies—and I 
make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be 
true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year of Her 
Majesty’s reign entitled an Act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extra judicial oaths. 
Dated Bear Island Settlement July 23, 1877. 
CHARLES STUART 
In presence of : 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U.S. Consul 
PROVINCE OF NovA SCOTIA 
CouUNTY OF RICHMOND 


I hereby Certify that the above named Charles Stuart voluntarily 
made and subscribed before me at Bear Island Settlementin said County 
of Richmond the foregoing Solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 23rd day of July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 169. 


I Edward Levanger do solemnly declare that I am living at Harbor 
Bouché that I am 31 years old—that for about eleven years I have been 
a fisherman by occupation I have been Captain of a fishing vessel of 
my own the *“ Winfield Scott” but I sold her this year—during good 
fishing times I remember to have counted as many as 500 American fish- 
ing vessels between East Point on Prince Edward Island & the Magda- 
len Islands ; the mackerel fishing has much fallen off during the last 6 
years I don’t think that during that time half as many mackerel have 
been caught that during 6 years preceding the period dating back 
from 8 years ago—I think that Provincial fishing vessels catch quite as 
many fish when fishing alongside of American vessels as they would if 
the Provincial vessel were by themselves provided they have as good 
bait as the Americans have which they sometimes however have not— 
during some years the Americans catch more fish inside a line 3 miles 
from shore at other years they catch by far the greater part outside that 
line, striking an average I think that taken one year with another the 
Americans have caught an equal portion of their entire catch of mack- 
erel inside a line3 miles from shore and outside of that line—I think that 
about one half of the crew of the American fishing fleet fishing in the 
waters oft the coasts of the Atlantic British Provinces are natives of the 
British Colonies who still are residents of the Provinces—the Americans 
dry their nets or seines but very seldom on the coasts of the British 
Provinces and they don’t cure their fish on the shores of the Colonies— 
the American herring fleet that comes to the shores of the British Prov- 
inces averages about 60 to 7U sails the season during the spring they 
fish at the Magdalen Islands for about two to three weeks & then go 
home—in the fall they go about the last of September to the coasts of 
Labrador and Newfoundland—the average size of an American herring 
fishing vessel is about eighty tons and during the spring trip such a ves- 
sel would on an average catch a thousand barrels of herring—such a 
vessel going in the fall to the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ~ 3243 


would average during the winter trip a catch of about eight hundred 

barrels—all the codfish Caught by the Americans is caught outside the 
' 8 mile limits—the Americans to a small extent catch halibut off the 

coasts of the Colonies—about 3 to 5 American halibut fishing vessels 

fish on the coasts of Anticosti they make generally two trips during the 

season and each vessel averages per trip about fifty thousand pounds— 

besides going to Anticosti the Americans don’t fish for mackerel on any 

other places off the coasts the British Provinces except about 15 

American vessels who go halibut fishing on the grand banks of New- 

foundland—the Americans don’t fish for any other class of fish off the 

coasts of the British Colonies except those I have mentioned and I make 

this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true 

and by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year of the reign of her 

Majesty entituled an act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-ju- 

dicial oaths. 

Dated Harbor Bouche July 25th 1877. 
EDWARD LEVANGER 
In presence of 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U.S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NovA SCOTIA 
CouNTY OF ANTIGONISH July 25, 1877 


I hereby Certify that the above named Edward Levanger this 25th 
day of July 1877 duly made and Subscribed before me the foregoing 
solemn declaration freely and voluntarily at Harbour Bouché in said 
county of Antigonish 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal the day and year above 


mentioned 
JAMES G. McKEEN 
(Seal.) Notary Publie 
No. 170. | 


I George Langley do solemnly declare that I am fifty four (54) years 
old—that I live at Bear Island Strait of Canso and am a british sub- 
ject—that I went first fishing when I was between 12 and 13 years old 
and have been at it ever since, during the summer season I go in fish- 
ing vessels but during the spring season and late in the fall I go boat- 
fishing in-shore—during three seasons I have been employed on Ameri- 
can Mackerel fishing vessels during the other seasons I have been em- 
ployed in Provincial Mackerel fishing vessels in the Gulf of St Law- 
rence—during the last 6 or 7 years the mackerel fishing has been getting 
poorer every year and has been nothing like what it was say 10 to 15 
years ago—I don’t believe that the average annual catch during the 
last 6 years has been over 4 part of the entire annual catch of the pe- 
riod of from 10 to 15 years ago—my own experience in the American 
vessels on which I have been engaged is that we caught during every 
one of the three seasons all our mackerel many more than 3 miles from 
any shore—during clear days the North Cape of Prince Edward Island 
could just be seen—I can form no estimate of the proportion of mack- 
erel caught by the entire American fleet inshore—from my experience I 
don’t think that Provincial fishermen ever catch a smaller number of 
mackerel on account of having an American fleet fishing alongside of 
them—I have never seen an American fishing vessel fish for bait in- 
Shore on the Coasts of the Dominion of Canada—the earliest I have 
been in the Gulf of St Lawrence on an American fishing schooner was 


= 


3244 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 


the 20th of June—the big fleet of the American fishing fleet don’t come 
until after the fourth of July—during the period of from 10 to 15 years 
ago there were probably from 400 to 500 American sails in the Gulf 
fishing for mackerel—during the last 5 years they did not average more 
than 70 or 80 sails annually—I think that fully 4 of the crew of the 
American fishing fleet in the Gulf of St Lawrence is composed of sub- 
jects of the North American British Provinces who continue be resi- 
dents of the Provinees. I think that the presence of American fish- 
ermen on these coasts and in our harbours is of great pecuniary ad- 
vantage to the people of the Provinces while Iam not aware that it 
injuriously affects any of their interests and I make this solemn decla- 
ration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of 
an Act passed during the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled an 
Act for the suppression of voluntary aud extra-judicial oaths. 

Dated Bear Island July 23d 1877. 
GEORGE LANGLEY 
In presence of: 

OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


I hereby Certify that the above named George Langley voluntarily 
made and subscribed before me at Bear Island Settlement in said 
County of Richmond the foregoing Solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 23rd day of July 1877. 

JAMES G. McKEEN 

(Seal.) Notary Public. 

Nos il. 


I Hugh McPherson of Bear Island, Strait of Canso, Richmond County, 
Nova Scotia do solemnly declare that I am a native of and residing in 
the Province of Nova—that by occupation I am a fisherman—that I 
have been a fisherman during the last nine (9) years having before that 
time been a seaman—during two seasons I have been employed as one 
of the crews of American fishing vessels fishing for mackerel—I think 
that Colonial fishing vessels catch quite as many mackerel when fishing 
alongside of an American mackerel fishing fleet as they would catch in 
case there were no American fishing vessels in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
—the Americans catch their codfish outside the three mile limit from 
shore—I don’t think that on an average the Americans catch more than 
4th of their entire catch of mackerel within the 3 miles line from shore, 
$th is caught outside that line—the catch of mackerel has much fallen 
off during the last 5 or 6 years, during the 2 last seasons there were but 
very few mackerel caught in the Gulf—last season there were probably 
not over thirty American mackerel fishing vessels in the Gulf of St 
Lawrence and the year before probably not over fifty or sixty vessels— 
last year & the year before there were not over id of the number of 
Colonial fishing vessels in the Gulf of St Lawrence that visited the Gulf 
6 or 7 years ago—eight years ago according to a rough calculation I 
should say there were about 300 to 400 American mackerel fishing ves- 


sels in the Gulf—I don’t think that the Americans anywhere cure fish’ 


on the Colonial coasts and I have not seen them dry their nets on our 
shores—a small number of American mackerel fishing vessels arrive at 
the Gulf of St Lawrence in June but the bulk of them don’t come until 
July and August the presence of American fishermen is a great pecu- 
niary advantage to the People of the Provinces especially when the 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3245 


eatch of fish is good—they are in the habit of buying at a great num- 
ber of Ports supplies of every description of the merchaut and the 
farmer and I don’t know in what respect their presence would be dis- 
advantageous to the people of the Provinces and I make this solemn 
declaration conscientiously believing the same-to be true and by virtue 
of the Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled 
“ An Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 
Dated at Bear Island July 23d 1877. 
HUGH McPHERSON 


In presence of 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
CouUNTY OF RICHMOND 


I hereby certify that the above named Hugh McPherson voluntarily 
made and subscribed before me at Bear Island settlement in said County 
f Richmond the foregoing Solemn declaration 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 23rd day of July 1877 
JAMES G. McCKEEN 
(Seal.) Notary Public. 
No. 172. 


I Chandler Embree do solemnly declare that I have been born and 
always living at Bear Island Settlement about 2 miles below Hawkes-. 
bury on the Strait of Canso—that I am 30 years of age—that ever since 
I was 14 years old I have been employed in fishing in boats and vessels 
ghat during 4 summers I was employed on American fishing vessels in 
the Gulf of St Lawrence—the mass of American Mackerel fishers ar- 
rive in the Gulf about the 4th of July—a few American vessels may be 
there before that time—I do not believe that the catch of Colonial fish- 
ermen is lessened on account of an American mackerel fleet fishing along- 
side of them—the average crew of an American fishing vessel consists of 
about 13 to 14 men—I think that fully one half of the crew of the Amer- 
ican fishing fleet is composed of natives of the several British North 
American Provinces who continue to reside in these Provinces—I think 
that about #th of the entire catch of mackerel by the American fleet is 
usually caught outside a line 3 miles from shore and about 4th in-shore 
—the Americans do not one in a hundred make use of the privilege to 
dry nets and none to cure fish on the Colonial coasts as far as I know 
—the outfitting of an American fishing vessel is much more expensive 
than that of Colonial vessels of the same tonnage but I cannot say how 
much higher it comes—The Americans do not fish for Codfish inside- 
the 3 mile limit from shore—I know although I have not seen them that 
a few American vessels are engaged in halibut fishing of the coast of 
Anticosti but I can not say how many—codfish, mackerel, herring and 
halibut are all the fish that Americans catch off the coasts of British. 
North America—the average of herring caught annually by an averaged 
sized American herring fishing vessel is about I should think 1200 bar- 
—(1200 barrels)-—I don’t think that there have been over 7 seine fishing: 
mackerel vessels on an average during the last 5 years in the Galf of 

-St Lawrence—they have to go into deep water to get their seines to- 
work—seine fishing is injurious to fishing as it breaks up the schools of 
mackerel—the American seiners do not seem to have been successful 
in the Gulf of St Lawrence the presence of American fishermen on 
the coasts and in the ports of the several Atlantic British Provinces. 

has pecuniarily greatly benefited the people of the Colonies and as far 


ie 


3246 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


as I know not been an injury to them in any respect, and I do solemnly 
declare that I have made the foregoing declaration conscientiously be- 
lieving the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 
37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled an Act for the suppression 
of voluntary and extra judicial oaths. 

Bear Island Settlement July 23d 1877. 

CHANDLER EMBREE 
In presence of : 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U.S. Consul 


FROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


I hereby Certify that the above named Chandler Embree voluntarily 
made and subscribed before me at Bear Island Settlement in said 
County of Richmond the foregoing solemn declaration 

Given under my hand & Notarial Seal this 23rd day of July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 173. 


I, Solomon Cahoon do solemnly declare that I have been engaged as 
a merchant at Cape Canso C. B. for over 10 years—that I have been in 
the habit of trading with American codfishing vessels—that last year, 
which in that respect was an average year, I traded with about 80 
American fishing vessels to the aggregate amount of, as near as I can 
come to it, about $10,000—thbis amount represents the sum expended by 
them at this port and neighboring ports within about 3 hours sail for 
supplies of all kinds including about $5000.00 advanced to them for 
purchasing bait at said ports—the Am. vessels, as a rule, buy all the 
bait they obtain at these ports and adjacent waters, exceptionally how- 
ever they themselves catch some squid for bait, this however is insignifi- 
cantand hardly worth being taken into account—the vessels i. e. American 
vessels, who call at this port for supplies, are in the habit of calling also 
at other ports in the Dominion to receive supplies of different descrip- 
tions during the same fishing cruise I can not estimate the sums ex- 
pended by them in such other ports—the Americans do not carry on 
boatfishing in these waters and make no use of curing fish and but very 
little, if any, of drying nets or seines on the coasts of these Provinces— 
for No 1 Salmon and No 1 and No 2 Mackerel, caught by Colonial ves- 
sels, the United States are the only market and most of the fat herring, 
although I do not know the exact proportion, goes to the United States, 
a portion of the fat herring, I know, finds a market in the Provinces of 
Quebec and Ontario—codfishing is carried on by the Am. vessels on 
the high seas, they do not catch cod within 3 miles from shore—the 
presence of American fishermen in the waters of these Provinces is as 
far as I know in no respect injurious to the interests of the Provinces 
but of great pecuniary advantage to them, and I make this solemn dec- 
laration conscientiously believing it to be true and by virtue of the Act 
passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entitled an Act for the 
suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths 

Cape Canso June 16th 1877. 

SOLOMON. -COHOON 
Witness: 
OSCAR MALMROS } 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3247 


CONSULATE OF THE U. S. OF AMERICA AT 
Pictou, N. 8., CAPE CANSO AGENCY 
June 16th 1877. 


This is to certify that before me, the undersigned, Oscar Malmros, U. 
S. Consul for Pictou N. S. and the dependencies thereof, personally ap- 
peared the above named Solomon Cohoon and on said 16th of June at 
Cape Canso voluntarily made and subscribed the foregoing Solemn 
Declaration. 


OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S&S. Consul 


No. 174. 


I Thomas C. Cook of Cape Canso in the Province of Nova Scotia do 
solemnly declare that | nowam and for the last Twenty years, have 
been a Merchant transacting business at this port, and am well ae- 
quainted with the business transacted by American Codfishing vessels 
frequenting this port, and tomy knowledge American fishing vessels do 
not fish Codfish at all within three miles from the shores, and very rare 
cases if any mackarel by seines within that distance, and from the 
changes in the methods of fishing of late years, the inshore fisheries are 
less important than formerly— 

I am not aware that American fishermen make any use of the Shores 
of the British Provinces for the purpose of drying nets or curing fish— 

Fresh bait, fishing supplies, and outfits of all kinds are purchased at 
all convenient harbours on the Coasts of Nova Scotia to a large extent, 
at this port and harbors within two three or hours sail—the amount 
expended for the above purpose reaches the aggregate Amount of 
Twenty to Twenty Five thousand Dollars Annually— 

The United States markets are now the only markets for the Number 
One Salmon, Number One and Two Mackerel, and for nearly all the fat 
Herrings produced by the fisheries of the British Provinces, a few only 
of the Herring of that Class being sent to Canada— 

It is a fact felt and acknowledged by all engaged in the busiuess that 
the in-shore fisheries of the British Provinces are less valuable than 
Beery, the deep sea Codfishery being more advantageously fol- 

owed— 

American fishermen purchase annually at this port and adjacent har- 
bours—within two or three hours sail—fresb fish for bait—to the Amount 
of Twelve to fifteen thousand Dollars, and Catch no bait whatever ex- 
cept on rare occasions a few Squid which are not worth taking into ac- 
count. 

I would judge that about half or more of the crews of American fish- 
ing vessels are residents of the British Provinces. 

While the presence of American fishermen in the waters of the British 
provinces is in no respects injurious to the fishermen of said Provinces 
itis of great pecuniary profit and and advantage to the people of the 
Dominion of Canada—, 

_ And I make this solemn declaration conscientionsly believing it to be 

true—and by virtue of the Act passed in the Thirty-Seventh Year of 
Her Majestys Reign Entitled An Act for the Suppression of Voluntary 
and Extra judicial oaths, 


Cape Canso June 16th 1877 
THOS. C. COOK 


3248 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


COUNTY OF lei haa 
CAPE CANSO 


I the undersigned Justice of the Peace for the County of Guysborough 
do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement and declaration was 
made and Subscribed, before me by the before mentioned Thomas C. 


Cook 
SOLOMON COHOON J. P. 
No. 175. 


I, Alfred W. Hart do solemnly declare that I have been a merchant 
in Cape Canso during the last 16 years that I have been in the habit of 
supplying American Codfishing vessels at this port—last year I fur- 
nished supplies to about 100 Am. fish’g vessels the supplies together with 
moneys furnished them to buy bait aggregating $10,000 or over—the 
year before was considerably better than last year but my trade with 
Am. fishing vessels during the last 10 years would average as near as I 
can come about $10,000 a year—the same vessels that were supplied by 
me no doubt got supplies, especially bait, at other points in the Cana- 
dian Provinces besides that of Canso—Mackerel & herring fishing vessels. 
are not in the habit of calling here—I am not aware of any injury done 
by Am. fisking vessels in the waters of the Provinces but am of opin- 
ion that their presence in the waters of the Colonies have been of great 
pecuniary benefit to the people thereof—The only market for No 1 and 
No 2 mackerel and No 1 Salmon is the United States—the American 
fishermen do not engage in boatfishing, they catch cod over 3 miles from 
shore—the American buy nearly all the bait they obtain here a little 
perhaps not quite jth part they may catch themselves the presence of 
Am. fishing fleets alongside of Provincial fishermen does not lessen the 
catch of the latter—I have never heard of American fishermen having 
made use of any of the shores of Nova Scotia or the Gulf of St Lawrence 
for curing fish or drying nets or seines—I judge that fully one half of 
the crew of Am. fishing vessels visiting the British Colonial Atlantic 
waters are British subjects residing in the Dominion of Canada and I 
make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and 
by virtue of the Act passed during the 37th year of her Majestys reign 
entitlued an Act for the suppression of voluntary & extrajudicial oath 


Cape Canso C. B. June 16. 1877. 
ALFRED W HART 


In presence of: ; 
OSCAR MALMROS ; 
U. 8. Consul 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
GUYSBORO’ CouNTY, TOWN OF CAPE CANSO 


Be it remembered that on this 16th day of June in the Year of Our 
Lord One thousand Eight hundred and Seventy Seven, personally ap- 
peared before me Thomas C Cook of Cape Canso in the Province of 
Nova Scotia Notary Public, Alfred W. Hart, who made and subscribed 
the foregoing statement and declaration, 

In testimony whereof I the said Notary have hereunto subscribed my 
name, and affixed my Notarial Seal at Cape Canso in the Province afore- 
said on the day and year aforementioned— 


(Seal.) THOS. C. COOK 
Not. Pub. 


a. *- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3249 
No. 176. 


My name is James G. McKeen, I am a British subject, have resided 
at Port Hastings Strait of Canso for the last thirty five years, the 
‘greater part of that time I have been engaged Merchandising. I have 
had considerable dealings with fishermen a large part of my trade was 
with American Mackerel and Codfishermen, visiting the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence, 

About ten Years ago when Mackerel were plentiful in the Gulf of St 
Lawrence, the American Mackerel fishermen purchased fishing supplies 
largely in the Strait of Canso, such as Barrels, Salt, Bait, Wood, Flour, 
Beef, Pork, Butter, Lard, Potatoes, Small Stores Clothing, &c. &c. 

The trade from the American fishing Vessels in the Strait of Canso 
has been of very great pecuniary advantage to the people of this part 
of Nova Scotia, I have know American Mackerel fishing Vessels fre- 
quently purchase supplies here amounting to from one thousand to 
fifteen hundred Dollars pr Season Each, I believe that American fisher- 
men have been in the habit of buying supplies in the several Harbours 
along the Coasts of the British Provinces and that they bought fishing 
supplies largely in Prince Edwards Island, but I cannot give any approxi- 
mate idea of the Amonnt 

The Codfishermen for Several Years past purchase also the ordinary 
supplies above named, to a large extent, and besides they purchase Ice 
and large quantities of fresh Herrings and Mackerel for bait all along 
the Coasts of the Provinces, this supplying of Ice and fresh fish for 
bait to American Codfishing vessels is becoming quite an extensive 
business, New Icehouses are being erected every Year around the 
Coasts of the Provinces. and larger stocks of ice are stored, to be sold 
principally to the United States fishermen, these fishermen after taking 
in a supply of ice go for fresh Herring or Mackerel, purchasing from 
forty to sixty barrels, wherever they are to be had along the Coast, and 
this “ baiting up” as it is called is repeated two or three times each 
season, and oftener when Codfish are scarce, these Herring and Mack- 
erel are sold to the fishermen at from one Dollar and fifty Cents to three 
Dollars and sometimes higher The American fishing Vessels both the 
Codfishing and mackerel fleet frequently make considerable expenditures 
in Ports of the Provinces for repairs to their Vessels and in the purchase 
of Anchors, Cables, Sails, Spars. &c. &e. 

About ten to twelve Years ago from two hundred and fifty to three 
hundred American fishing vessels passed through the Strait of Canso 
yearly bound into the Gulf of St Lawrence for the purpose of catching 
Mackerel, but during the last four or five Years this number has de- 
creased very much owing as I have understood from the scarcity of 
Mackerel in the Gulf of St Lawrence and the large catch of Mackerel 
on the United States coast, last Season there were probably not over 
Seventy American Mackerel fishing Vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
and the average Catch of these vessels was reported not to have ex- 
ceeded one hundred barrels of Mackerel each 

The bait chiefly used by American Mackerel fishing Vessels is Men- 
haden or Porgies. these fish are taken I believe entirely on the coast 
of the United States, and mostly in Seines within three Miles of the 
land, so I have been informed. British Mackerel fishermen use the 
same kind of bait principally and depend on the United States for the 
supply, clams are also used as bait for Catching Mackerel by both 
American and Colonial Mackerel fishing vessels, and they are obtained 
chiefly in the United States, 


204 F 


3250 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Nearly all the Numbers one, and two, and a large part of the Num- 
ber three Mackerel, number one Salmon, and large quantities of fat and 
poor Herrivgs, caught by Provincial fishermen around our Coasts, are 
shipped to the United States for a Market, that being the best and al- 
most the only Market for our fat and best fish 

I am not aware that the American fishermen use to any appreciable 
extent the shores of the Provinces for curing their fish or drying Nets 

The American fishing Vessels employ large numbers of men belong- 
ing to the Provinces on board their vessels every year, probably over 
two thousand men yearly, these men go in Mackerel fishing Vessels 
generally on Shares and in Codfishing Vessels they are chiefly hired 
receiving fairly remunerative Wages, the employment of so many 
men on board American fishing Vessels is considered a great advantage 
to our people in a pecuniary point of view 


And I James G. McKeen aforesaid do solemnly declare that I con-. 


scientiously believe that the facts contained in the foregoing declara- 
tion are true and I make this declaration, by virtue of the Act passed 
in the 37th Year of Her Majestys Reign entitled an act for the suppres- 
sion of voluntary and extra judicial Oaths 

JAMES G. McKEEN 


I hereby certify that the foregoing statement was signed in my pres- 
ence by James G. McKeen above named at Port Hastings Nova Scotia 
the 13th day of June A D 1877 

A B SKINNER 


Justice of the Peace for the County of Inverness— 
No. 177. 


I George Bunker do solemnly declare that Iam 31 years old—that I 
am living at Margaret Bay 24 miles from Halifax—I have been em- 
ployed as a fisherman ever since I was a boy—for 10 seasons I have been 
master of a fishing vessel fishing in the waters off the American coasts 
& those of Nova Scotia, the Gulf of St Lawrence & Magdalen Island 
for cod and mackerel & herring—cod fish is not at all caught by the 
Am. fishermen within 3 miles from shore—about $ of the mackerel caught 
by the Americans is caught within 3 miles from shore—the catch of 
mackerel in Provincials waters has much fallen off during the last 5 or 
6 years, of late years they are doing hardly anything in mackerel fish- 
ing in Provincial waters—the crew of American fishing vessels in Pro- 
vincial waters consist of from 4 to 3 of British subjects, residing in the 
Provinces—the monthly wages of the crew of these fishing vessel would 
average about $3099, per man. The Americans buy all the bait they 
obtain in the Provinces, they do not fish for bait here themselves—an 
American fishing schooner of say from 70 tons to 85 tons would leave 
in the provinces from $200 to $300,°°, for bait, ice, fuel & provisions thatis 
if such schooner called only once during the season at a port of the Proy- 
inces & did not land cargo for re-shipment—I do not think that the 
Canadian fisheries have sustained any injury on account of the fishing 
of the Americans nor that that the catch of Provincial fishermen has 
been less on account of fishing along side of an American fishing fleet— 
It costs fully one third more to fit,—out man & furnish an American 
fishing vessel than a Provincial—The Americans make no use of the 
shores of the Provinces for curing fish and but very seldom for the pur- 
pose of drying nets—codfish is not caught by Americans within 3 miles 


from shore—the Americans fish for mackerel in the Provincial waters | 


= | 


se — 


| 


<a ee oe ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3251 


but very little before the month of July because up to that time the 
mackerel are poor and lean—I believe that if the Provincials had as much 
enterprise and invested as much ecapital in fishing & fishing vessels as 
the Americans that the privilege of fishing in Am. waters northof the 39th 
degree of latitude would be as valuable to them as the right to fish in 
Provincial waters is to the Americans There can be no doubt that the 
presence of American fishermen in the waters of the Provinces is of 
very great benefit to the People thereof as they expend a great deal, of 
money for clothing, provisions & supplies of all kinds, and I make this 
solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by 
virtue of an Act passed inthe 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled 
“An Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial Oaths 


Cape Canso June 16th 1877. 
CAPT GEORGE BUNKER 
In presence of 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 


I Thomas C Cook of Cape Canso in the Province of Nova Scotia No- 
tary Public do hereby certify unto all whom it may concern that the 
above and foregoing declaration and Statement was made and sub- 
scribed in my presence by the above named George Bunker on the day 
of the date thereof 

In testimony whereof I the said Notary have hereunto subscribed my 
name and affixed my Notarial Seal at Cape Canso aforesaid this Six- 
teenth day of June in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Eight hun- 
dred and Seventy Seven— 

(Seal.) THOS. C. COOK 
Not. Pub. 
No. 178. 


Francis Marmeau of Arichat being sworn says: I have been engaged 
in Arichat in General Merchandising for about 22 years and am well 
acquainted with the general trade of this Port and with everything 
connected with the fisheries I have also been in the habit of supplying 
American fishing vessels calling at this Port—the average number of 
American fishing vessels calling at this Port during the last five years 
was about two hundred the year—they call for bait and ice aud get the 
former at this place or on the coast of this Island i.e Isle Madame— 
take one with another and each vessel during that time has bought at 
each call about sixty dollars worth of bait—the bait consists in fresh 
herring and mackerel, the herring costs them in the spring about 50 
cents a hundred and from the 1st of July the herring costs about $1,°,, 
a hundred—for mackerel they pay about 5 or 6 dollars a barrel—the 
Am fishing vessels never catch there bait here in the bay, they always 
buy it—for ice each vessel during said period has expended at this Port 
about from fifteen to twenty-five dollars at $2,°,°, a ton for the ice—the 
American fishing vessel} calling here in the spring and summer don’t 
buy anything else here than ice and bait—about 10 Am. herring fishing 
vessels call here late in the fall on their way to the Newfoundland shore 
and at that time they do not buy any bait or ice but buy considerable 
quantities of beef pork mutton potatoes and country wollen cloth manu- 
factured by the country people butter and other articles, each vessel 
expends here on an average for those articles in the fall before going to 
the fisheries for the winter trip fully five hundred dollars or over—the 
entire number of young fishermen who annually are engaged by the 


: 


3252 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


American fishing vessels calling at this Port is part of the crew of the 
American vessels during the season is fully 300 from Isle Madame 
alone—these young men return to their homes after the fishing sea- 
son—the presence of the American fishing fleet on our coasts is of great 
pecuniary advantage to our people and does not injuriously affect any 
of the interests of our people. The vessels i. e. Am vessels I have sup- 
plied for their fishing tour amount to about 5 or 6 vessels per season— 
{ have never seen or heard of American fishermen drying their nets on 
the coasts of these Provinces and of but one American fishing vessel 
have dried fish on our coasts. 
Frs MARMEAU 


Subscribed & sworn to before me this 28th day of July 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. 8. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NovA SCOTIA 
ARICHAT, COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


At Arichat in said Richmond County on this 28th day of July 1877 
the above named Francis Marmeau made and subscribed in my presence 
the foregoing affidavit 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Arichat aforesaid 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 179. 


I, James L. Girrois do solemnly declare that: I am living at Arichat, 
Isle Madame—the extent of the Island is 7 miles by 14 miles—I am mas- 
ter of the schooner Maggie of this Port (Arichat)—I am well acquainted 
with the trade of the Port having always lived here—from 250 to 300 
American fishing vessels, mostly codfishing have called here on an 
average each season during the last five years—they take in here ice 
and bait—each vessel buys bait here to the amount of about 50 barrels 
of mackerel and herring for the herring they pay about $1,°°, a hundred 
and for the mackerel about $5,°,°, a barrel the average cost of bait per 
barrel herring & mackerel will cost them about $2,5,°, a barrel—they 
also take in each on an average about 5 or 6 tons of ice costing from 
$2.50 to $3,°°, per ton—fully three hundred of the fishermen ship in 
American fishing vessels from Isle Madame, going mostly in the spring 
to Gloucester for that purpose—I am of the opinion that the coming of 
American fishermen to our coasts to fish is a good thing for the Prov- 
inces as they spend considerable money in our ports and give employ- 
ment to a great many of our fishermen and I make this solemn declara- 
tion conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of an 
Act passed during the 37th year of her Majestys reign entituled an Act 
for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 

Dated Arichat Isle Madame July 29th 1877. 

JAMES L. GIRROIS 
Master Schr Maggie 
In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. 8S. Consul. 


PROVINCE OF Nova SCOTIA 
WEST ARICHAT COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


At West Arichat in said Richmond County on this 29th day of July 


Pm, ~ 


ie 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3253 


1877 the above named James L Girrois made and Subscribed the fore- 
going solemn declaration before me 
Given under my hand and Notarial Sealat Arichat aforesaid this 29th 
day of July 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
Notary Public 


No. 180. 


I Isidore Le Blane do swear that I am a general merchant doing busi- 
ness at Arichat Isle Madame, almost the only or at least by far the prin- 
cipal business of this place is the fishing interest—I don’t think that 
capital invested in fishing vessels owned in this Island (Isle Madame) 
has cleared during the last five years on an average over five per cent 
profit I think that during the period just named about three hundred 
American fishing vessels have called per annum at this Port and bought 
on this Island on an average each about $200 worth of fresh bait, con- 
sisting in herring and mackerel and I think about $15 to $20,°°, worth 
of ice per vessel although as to this latter article I am not sure—I know 
that about 100 of our young fishermen go each year in April & May to 
Gloucester to secure good berths on fishing, mostly codfishing, vessels— 
they return to the Island after the end of the fishing season—they fish 
on shares and do well at it I think that the coming of American fish- 
ing vessels to our coasts advances the prosperity of our people and does 
not interfere with any of its interests. So help me God. 

Dated Arichat July 29th 1877. ISIDURE LE BLANC 


Subscribed & sworn to before me 
July 29th 1877 } 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
ARICHAT, COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


At Arichat in said Richmond County on this 29th day of July 1877 
the above named Isadore Le Blance made and subscribed in my pres- 
ence the foregoing affidavit 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Arichat aforesaid the 29th 


day of July 1877 
Seal JAMES G. McKEEN 
(Seal.) Notary Public 


No. 181. 


I, Simon P. Le Blane do solemnly declare that I am shipping master 
at}West Arichat Isle Madam—I have lived here since I was born I 
know tbat about one hundred American fishing vessels call annually at 
the Ports of Arichat and West Arichat, besides a great number of 

_ American fishing vessels buy bait on the Island without entering any 
_ harbor—on an average each Am. fishing vessel during the last five or 
six years has bought bait on the Island to the amount of between twenty 
five and thirty barrels, sometime the same vessel will call three or four 
times during the same season and each time take in a similar quantity 
of bait, the price of the bait averages about between three and four 
dollars per barrel for the herring and about ($7,°9;) for the mackerel 
per barrel—they take mostly herring it being most common in the 
spring but they prefer mackerel—each vessel takes about from five to 
eight tons of ice, those who go halibut fishing take from 30 to 40 tons 
of ice—the price of ice here is from two to three dollars per ton—I think 


ie 


3254 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


that fully one hundred fishermen go every spring to Gloucester U.S. A. 
to go codfishing mostly in American fishing vessel, besides a consider- 
able number are shipped during the season from this Island in Am. 
fishing vessels—I am of the opinion that the presence of American fish- 
ing vessels on the coasts of the Province is of great pecuniary advan- , 
tage to our people because they spend much money on our coasts and 
give employment to many of our fishermen and I make this solemn 
declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue 
of an Act passed during the 37th year of her Majestys reign entitled 
An Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra judicial oaths. 
Ss. P. LEBLANC 
Dated West Arichat July 29th 1877. 


In presence of : 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NovA SCOTIA 
WEST ARICHAT, COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


At West Aricbat in Said County of Richmond on this 29th day of 
July 1877 the above named 8S. P. Leblane made and Subscribed the fore- 
going solemn declaration before me 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Arichat aforesaid this 29th 
July 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 182. 


I Simon Theriot do solemnly declare that I reside at West Arichat, 
Isle Madame, N.S., that Iam engaged as a general trader and dealer in 
fish that I have been the owner of a fishing vessel engaged in Codfishing 
on the grand banks of Newfoundland the vessel was out fishing in 1875 
and 1876 and made no returns for the capital and labor invested in her 
—many others were ready to engage in fishing and investing capital in 
fishing vessels but when I did not succeed they concluded that it was 
no use to try and do any business in that line—I know of no person who 
invested capital in fishing vessels in this place and who did well in it— 
not one—about 150 American fishing vessels have as far as 1 am able to 
make a rough estimate visited Isle Madame each season on an average dur- 
ing the last three years and bought bait each to the average amount one 
hundred dollars; they the American vessels never catch any bait on these 
coasts—I have never known them to dry their nets or cure their fish 
on our coasts—each Am. fishing vessels on an average takes in at at 
Arichat about 6 to 10 tons of ice—last year they, the ice merchants sold 
ice at $4,°%, a ton, now they sell it at $2,59,a ton And I make this 
solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by 
virtue of an act passed during the 37th year of her Majestys reign en- 
titled an Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra judicial oaths. 

West Arichat July 29th 1877. 

SIMON TERRIO 


In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U.S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF Nova SCOTIA 
WEST ARICHAT, COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


At West Arichat in said County of Richmond on this 29th day of July 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3255 


1877 the above named Simon Terrio made and Subscribed the foregoing 
solemn declaration before me 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Arichat aforesaid this 29th 


day of July 1877 
JAMES G. MCKEEN 
(Seal.) Notary Public 
No. 183. 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF RICHMOND 


I, William LeVesconte of D’Escouse in Isle Madam Cape Breton 
Merchant do declare as follows— 

That for the past twenty five years I have been engaged in the fishing 
business in this Island—supplying vessels and fishermen for the deep 
sea and other fisheries—and from my knowledge and experience there- 
in, I do estimate that the number of fishermen who have left this Island 
to serve in American fishing vessels—returning to their homes at the 
close of the season for the past five years—to average two hundred— 

That there has been a large amount of bait procured on this Coast 
by American fishing vessels but I cannot form any correct estimate as 
to quantity 

That the British fishing vessels have, in this locality, yielded a profit 
of at least twenty five per cent during the period above mentioned— 

That certain advantages have been derived by the resident fishermen 
from the calling of American vessels for bait and other necessaries to the 
extent of the amount expended herefor— 

That I do not consider the interests of British fishermen on this coast 
have been interfered with by those in American vessels to any extent— 
And lastly Ido not know of any American vessel curing her fish on 
this coast and only in one instance of the fact of drying her nets 

I make the above declaration conscientiously believing the same to 


be true— 
WILL" LEVESCONTE. 


Signed and declared to before me this 30th day of July AD. 1877. at 
Descouse 
W. R; CUTLER 
Notary Public 
No, 184. 


PROVINCE OF NoVA SCOTIA 

CoUNTY OF RICHMOND 

I Charles Doyle of Rocky Bay in Isle Madam do declare as follows— 
that I am a fisherman and have been engaged in that business regularly 
for the past thirty years—That a large quantity of fish are taken in this 
locality by nets and it is a great resort for American Bank vessels to 
procure bait during the fishing season 

That in my opinion at least one hundred vessels have on an average, 
for the past five years, been ‘baited’ in this Bay and adjacent harbors 
of the Island—and have annually purchased at least Twenty five hun- 
dred barrels of herring and mackerel for that purpose—paying therefor 
at the rate of three dollars per barrel for herring and six dollars per 
barrel for Mackerel—That most of those vessels are provided with ice 
when they come here from ports outside of this Island— 
- That large advantages are gained by the fishermen from the fact of 
their vessels calling here for bait and supplies all of which are paid for 
in cash 


: 


3256 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 


That no interference is given to the British fishermen in the prose- 
cution of their calling by the American vessels as they only remain 
sufficiently long to procure their necessaries and then leave immediately 
for the Banks 

That no American fishermen have set nets or dried them—or cured 
fish on this part of the coast within my knowledge—I make the above 
declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true 

CHARLES DOYLE 


Signed and declared to before me this 30 day of July 1877. at Rocky 


Bay 
W. R. CUTLER 
Notary Public 
Nova Scotia 
No. 185. 


PROVINCE OF Nova SCOTIA } 
CoUNTY OF RICHMOND 


—I David Gruchy of Descouse in Isle Madam Cape Breton Merchant 
do hereby declare that 1 have been thirty three years engaged in the 
fishing business of this Island— —that from my knowledge and experi- 
ence therein I estimate the number of fishermen who have left this 
Island to join American vessels—and who return at the close of season 
—Averaging the last five years One hundred and fifty—the past two 
years tbere has been far less than formerly— 

That a large quantity of bait has been procured by American vessels 
around the coast of this Island. 

The British fishing vessels in this locality have yielded a profit of 
over twenty per cent during the period above mentioned 

That the resident fishermen have derived advantages from the fact of 
American vessels calling here for bait and supplies—to the extent of the 
sums paid therefor : 

That the interests of British fishermen on this coast have not been 
interfered with in my opinion to any extent 

And lastly I know of no American vessels curing fish or drying nets 
on this coast since I have been in the business here— 

I make the above declaration conscientiously believing the same to be 


true— 
D. GRUCHY. 


Signed and declared to before me at Descouse this 30th July. 1877. 
W. R. CUTLER 
- Notary Publie 
Nova Scotia 
No. 186. 


Jobn Grant being duly sworn says: 


I am living at Hawkesbury onthe Strait of Canso I am sixty four years 
old—I am by occupation a fisherman and pilot—for 40 years I have been 
a fisherman in over 20 American fishing vessels in the Gulf of St Law- 
rence—duringthe last six years the mackerel fishing has much fallen off— 
about 10 to 15 years ago the mackerel were very plentiful and I remem- 
ber to have seen as many as 700 American sails in the Gulf during some 
seasons. During those years there were only about 50 Provincial vessels 
in the Gulf—during those years Provincial vessels went mostly codfish- 
ing on the coasts of Labrador they had not the vessels fit for mackerel fish- 
ing and did not understand the business of mackerel fishing very well that 


* 


AWARD CF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3257 


is about 15 years or 20 years ago—last yeay was the slackest fishing season 
I have seen; I think there were nearly one hundred american fishing ves- 
sels in the Gulf and about 10 Provincial vessels fishing for mackerel—I 
don’t think that a single vessel made two trips during the year and not 
many of them had a full cargo, many in fact not over 50 barrels, Dur- 
ing the four seasons preceding the last there were about 120 American 
sails on an average during each season in the Gulf fishing for mackerel 
and about 15 to 20 Provincial vessels but the vessels did not well dur- 
ing any of those years—when I was with the Americans, that is, em- 
ployed on their fishing vessels, we caught most of the mackerel outside 
of line 3 miles from shore, we caught them outside of sight of land en- 
tirely on Bank Bradley and Bank that is from 20 to 30 years ago. 
—Ten (10) to 15 years ago we caught the mackerel in the American ves- 
sels I was in off the East Point Prince Edward Island and off New Lon- 
don P. E. I. and off Cascumbec P. E. I. about 8 to 10 miles off and the 
same distance off the North Cape P. E. I.; during the last 8 years the 
Americans caught most of their mackerel on the North Side of Prince 
Edward Island about 5 to 8 miles off the coast—they have caught but a 
small proportion of their entire catch inside 3 miles from shore certainly 
not more than one fourth of their entire catch inside 3 miles from shore 
and they caught that portion in the fall of the year—the American fishing 
vessels make most of the business that there isin the Strait of Canso, when 
there are but few American fishing vessels in our waters trade in the 
Strait is slack and money is scarce; during many years the only money 
we saw was Yankee money they buy a great deal of country produce as 
beef, mutton potatoes, all kinds of other vegetables, homespun cloth, 
socks & mittens made by the country people and other things besides 
buying largely store goods of various kinds and they give employment 
to a very great many of our fishermen besides to coopers and other me- 
chanics—particularly during the last 10 or 15 years.a great proportion of 
the crew of the American fishing fleet is composed of Colonial people, 
I mean such as have not removed their place of living to the States. I 
think it is of great advantage to the people of these Provinces that the 
American fishermen should visit our coasts and fish there as much as 
they please they do no injury to our fishing and nearly half of our fish- 
ermen would be out of employment if the Americans did not employ 


them in their vessels. 
JOHN GRANT 


Subscribed & sworn to before me this 27th day of July 1877. 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
! PorT HASTINGS, COUNTY OF iNVustNESS 
At Port Hastings in said County of Inverness on this 27th day of July 
1877 the above named John Grant made and subscribed in my presence 
the foregoing affidavit 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Port Hastings aforesaid 
the 27th day of July 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G@ McKEEN 
Notary Public 
No. 187. 


Patrick Walsh being duly sworn says: 
I am about 35 years old am living near McGuire’s at Steep Creek 
Guysboro Co, Nova Scotia have been fishing in vessels, mostly Ameri- 


_. 


3258 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


can vessels during the 21 years next preceding last year, I did not go 
last year because mackerel were too scarrce in the Bay—the big Ameri- 
can fleet does not leave home until after the 4th of July for the Gulf 
of St Lawrence to fish for mackerel mackerel don’t begin to get fat un- 
til the middle of August—the bait used by both Provincial and Ameri- 
can vessels is Pogies and clam & these come all from the United 
States, exceptionally a Provincial vessel may use herring but this is not 
a good bait—the average number of vessels fishing for mackerel in 
the Guif during the rebellion in the States was about 300 or 400 and 
about 30 to 40 (thirty to forty) Provincial vessels—during most of the 
years I was out mackerel fishing the Provincial vessels were about one 
tenth of the number of American vessels fishing for mackerel in the 
Gulf—fishing alongside of an American mackerel fleet would not lessen 
the catch of Provincial vessels provided the latter had as good bait 
and vessels as well fitted out as the Americans—the average number 
of hands employed on an American mackerel catcher is about 14 or 15 
hands—during the last 6 or 7 years the mackerel fishery in the Galf of 
St Lawrence has much fallen off—I don’t think that the average catch 
during that period was more than one fifth part per year of the quantity 
caught say ten years ago and during the ten years next preceding the 
season of ten years ago—I think that both Provincial vessels as well as 
American vessels catch more mackerel outside a line three miles from 
shore taking one year with another than they catch inside that line—I 
never fished near land for codfish in the Gulf but always out of sight of 
land—their bait for codfishing in the North Bay they, the Americans, 
buy mostly from Provincial fishermen along the British coasts—they 
mostly buy herring by the hundred paying about one dollar to $1,5,, 
a hundred, this pays the Provincial fishermen much better than salting 
the herring and putting them in barrels—I think about one half of the 
crew of American fishing vessels in the Gulf are men having their 
homes in the British Provinces—it is a great advantage that the Ameri- 
can fishing vessels come to our coasts as they leave much money among 
our people. 
Steep Creek August 7. 1877 


his 
PATRICK + WALSH 


matk 
In presence of 


JAMES G. MCKEEN 
OSCAR MALMROS 


PROVINCE OF Nova SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 
I hereby Certify that the above named Patrick Walsh before me made 
Oath to subscribed the foregoing statement. 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Steep Creek in the County 
of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia this 7th day of August 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G. McCKEEN 
Notary Public 
No. 188. 


George Critchet being duly sworn says: I am living at Middle Milford 
Guysboro County Nova Scotia—I am 37 years old from my 18th year 
until 4 years ago I have been out mackerel—and cod-fishing mostly in 
American vessels—I left off fishing because the mackerel fishing had 
been poor for several years and is still; whenever mackerel get to be 
plenty again I will be out fishing in vessels I think that in former years, 


s 


‘AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3259 


say from 10 years ago and longer the average number of the American 
mackerel fleet was upwards of three hundred during the season—during 
the same period about 30 or 40 Provincial vessels were in the Gulf of 
St Lawrence—the number of American vessels above referred to 
is intended as the number in the Gulf of St Lawrence—during 
the years previous to the last 10 years the average catch of 
mackerel was two trips for each vessel—during the last 6 or 7 years 
they have scarcely averaged one fall cargo during the season—I 
think that mackerel go where they find the best and largest quantity 
_ of feed and that when the wind if off shore it drives the small fish on 
which mackerel feed into deeper water and the mackerel follow them 
and whenever there is a big fleet off shore and heave over much bait 
the mackerel will follow the fleet-—during the years I was out fishing 
we did better outside a line 3 miles from shore than inside that 
line—on an average, I am of the opinion, about from 4 to 3d of 
all mackerel caught by vessels in the Gulf is caught outside of 
a line 3 miles from shore—I think that seine-fishing is very 
injurious to the mackerel fishery and ought to be prohibited entirely— 
I hope the Halifax Fishery Commission will recommend a treaty abolish- 
ing seine-fishing—it has never proved profitable in the Gulf of St Law- 
rence—the seines are about 25 fathoms deep and there are but few places 
in the Gulf deep enough for seine fishing—until the present season there 
were only two or three seine-fishers in the Gulf—the only bait used by 
mackerel fishers is clam and Porgies and that comes all from the United 
States—I have been out codfishing in the Bay i. e. Gulf of St Lawrence— 
the codfish caught by vessels in that Bay is all caught in deep water 
that is more than three miles from shore—the bait used for codfishing is 
herring and mackerel—this is mostely bought by American vessel from 
Provincial store-fishers—the spring-herring bait is bought per barrel at 
the rate of $1.50 to $2.00 each, fat herring is mostly bought by the hun- 
dred at the rate of about a dollar a hundred and $2.50 per hundred fresh 
mackerel (300 spring mackerel per barrel) generally it pays the boat- 
fishers better to sell the fish fresk to the codfishers than to salt and pack 
them—I don’t think that Provincial vessels catch any less mackerel on 
account of fishing alongside of an American fleet—I don’t think that the 
American fishermen dry nets or cure fish on the British coasts, at least 
I have never seen them do it—I think that about one third of the crew 
of American fishing vessels visiting the Gulf are men having their 
homes in the British Provinces. I think that the presence of American 
fishing vessels on our Coasts is of considerable pecuniary advantage to 
our people and does not in any way interfere with their interests. 
Dated Middle Millford, Guysboro Co. Aug 7th 1877 
GEORGE CRITCHETT 
In presence of : 
OSCAR MALMROS 


PROVINCE OF NoVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH. 


I hereby Certify that the above named George Critchett before me 
made oath to and subscribed the foregoing statement 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Middle Milford in the 
County of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia this 7th day of August 
1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 
Notary Public 


» 


r 


3260 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 189. 


I Christopher Carrigan do solemnly declare that I am twenty years 
old—am by occupation a fisherman and that I am living at Lower Mil- 
ford in the County of Guysborough in the Province of Nova Scotia I 
have been out mackerel fishing in the North Bay during the six years 
next preceding the Summer of 1876—during the time I was fishing in 
the North Bay I think the American Mackerel fleet fishing in the North 
Bay would average about one hundred Vessels, the Vessels in which I 
was fishing during that time averaged per Season I think a Catch of 
about 200 barrels per Season. I think that during the 6 years I was in 
the North Bay the Mackerel fleet from the Provinces fishing in the North 
Bay was about 20 vessels 

Provincial Mackerel fishing Vessels would—catch as many fish when 
side by side with American fishing vessels as if fishing by themselves— 
I do not know how many of the hundred American Vessels named 
above were Mackerel fishers and how many were Codfishers the Vessels 
in which I was Mackerel fishing used Porgies & Clams only as bait I 
have been two trip in the North Bay in Provincial Mackerel fishing 
Vessels and they also used only Porgies & Clams for bait. 

As far as I know the Americans do not cure their fish or dry their nets 
on the Coasts of the British Provinces 

I was out this spring & last spring in American Herring fishing Ves- 
sels to the Magdalens I think there were from 30 to 40 American Her- 
ring fishing Vessels there. Each Spring these Vessels Employ on an 
average two Men and two Boats from the British Provinces and pay on 
an average for Each Man & Boat about 30 dollars for the trip lasting 
about 3 weeks this Spring the American Herring Vessels at the Magda- 
len Islands did not average a Catch of over 300 barrels Each last 
Spring they all had full fares averaging about one thousand barrels 

The presence of the American fishing Vessels during the season around 
the Coasts of the British Provinces is a great pecuniary advantage to 
the people of these Provinces from the large amount of money they ex- 
ast among us and the large number of our men they employ in their 

essels 

And (I do solemnly declare that) I make this solemn declaration con- 
scientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Act 
passed in the 37th Year of Her Majestys Reign entitled an Act for sup- 
pression of Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths 

Dated at Lower Milford County Guysborough this 8th day of August 


1877 
CHRISTOPHER. CARRIGAN 
In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 


PROVINCE OF Nova SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 
I hereby Certify that the above named Christopher Carrigan volun- 
tarily declared to and subscribed before me the foregoing solemn de- 
claration 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Lower Milford in the 
Coens of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia this 8th day of August 
(4 
(Seal.) JAMES G@ McKEEN 
Notary Publie 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3261 
No. 190. 


William T. England being duly sworn says: I am fifty six years old, 
live at middle Millford Guysboro’ County N.S. since I was 11 years old 
up to about 7 years ago I have been out fishing in fishing vessels, mostly 
American vessels, that is I have been fishing in vessels for 40 years, 
during the last 7 years I have been boat fishing and farming—as far as 
I know the Americans don’t dry their nets on the British Coasts nor do 
they cure their fish on them—the bait used for mackerel is Porgies and 
clams and these all come from the United States—herring is now but 
very rarely used for bait and never except by Provincial vessels—the 
bait for codfish used by Americans in the Gulf of St Lawrence is mostly 
caught by themselves on the fishing grounds by the Americans and 
caught consequently in the deep seas—I have offen sold bait to the 
Americans going to the grand banks of Newfoundland codfishing—the 
codfishers going to the grand banks buy nearly all the bait they use, 
they use during the trip from 30 to 40 barrels of herring, buying it 
partly by the barrel, but often by the hundred—the hundred costs them 
from one dollar to one dollar and a quarter; it is much more profitable 
to the fishermen to sell their fish to the Bankers for bait than to salt 
and pack them in barrels and sell them to the merchants—I don’t think 
that Provincial fishermen catch any less mackerel on account of fishing 
alongside of an American fleet—during some seasons or rather series 
of seasons there are among the mackerel a great many old ones and 
then the mackerel keep much more off-shore in the deep seas, then fol- 
lows a series of seasons when old mackerel are very scarce and almost 
to have dixappeared and during such periods the mackerel will keep 
much more in-shore—those mackerel that are comparatively young 
always prefer to keep more in-shore—I have never known as small an 
American cod-and mackerel fleet in the Gulf of St Lawrence as during 
the last two years and especially last year because the catch of mack- 
erel was very poor. The American fleet, leaves every season, especially 
when mackerel are plenty considerable money among us and are there- 
fore and because they employ many of our men of considerable benefit 
to our coasts and as far as I know they don’t do any harm to any of 
our interest—all along the Strait of Canso the American fishing vessels 
that go to the Magdalen Islands herring fishing, about on an average 
40 (fourty) sails a season, hire boats and men—they each hire on an 
average 3 or 4 boats with as many men for an average trip of from 3 to 
4 weeks—they pay as high as $30,°°, to $35,%°, for a man and boat—I 
myself went this spring with an American herring catcher to the Mag- 
dalen Islands—I was three weeks away and got $35.9, for the trip— 

Dated Middle Millford Guysboro Co. Nova Scotia August 7th 1877 


his 
WILLIAM T. + ENGLAND 


mark. 
In presence of : 
OSCAR MALMROS 
PROVINCE OF NoVA SCOTIA 
CoUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 


I hereby Certify that the above named William T. England volunta- 
rily made oath to and subscribed before me the foregoing statement 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Middle Milford in the Co 
of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia this 7th day of August 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 
Notary Public 


meer - 


3262 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 191. 


I, Martin Ryan do solemnly declare that: I am living at Middle Mil- 
ford, County of Guysboro’-—I am 63 years old—have been fishing in 
mackerel vessels over thirty years—about 7 years agoI left off Bay- 
fishing in vessels since that time I have been boatfishing and farming— 
the Americans do not as far as I know dry their nets or cure their fish 
on British coasts—Provincial vessels do not according to my experience 

catch any smaller quantity of mackerel on account of fishing alongside 
of an American mackerel fleet in the Gulf of St Lawrence—while I was 
out fishing in the Gulf the Americans, during the time they had the 
privilege of fishing inshore as well as at other times when they had to 
fish in limits, caught nearly all their mackerel outside the 3 mile line 
from shore it was only an odd vessel that went in-shore and caught their 
mackerel there—the mackerel during most of the years I was in the 
Gulf mackerel fishing kept mostiy in the deep water and not more than 
one fourth of the entire catch of the American vessels in which I was 
was caught inside a line 3 miles from shore I have always fished in 
American vessels with the exception of five seasons when I was fishing 
in Provincial vessels—the bait used by the mackerel vessels in which I 
fished was Porgies and clams, we used no other bait—Porgies and clams 
all comes from the United States—between one third to 4 of the crew of 
the American fleet of mackerel fishing vessels are men having their homes 
in the British Provinces—the Americans have much benefited the people 
here in the Strait of Canso—the American herring fishers that come 
here in the spring give the first relief to our poor people and if it was 
not for the American fishing vessels on our coasts a very great number 
of our laboring men would be without employment, the great number of 
the American mackerel fleet come to the Gulf of St Lawrence from 
about the 10th of July-—the mackerel fishery has much fallen off and 
during the last three years the catch of mackerel has not been a paying 
one at all; during the last two years mackerel fishing has been almost 
a failure; and I do solemnly declare that I make this solemn declara- 
tion conscientiously believing 1t to be true and by virtue of an Act passed 
during the 37th year of her Majestys reign entitled an Act for the sup- 
pression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 

Dated Middle Millford August 7th 1877. ' 
MARTIN RYAN 
In presence of : 

OSCAR MALMROS 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 
I hereby Certify that the above named Martin Ryan voluntarily de- 
clared to and subscribed before me the foregoing solemn declazation 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Middle Milford in the 
County of Guysborough Province of Nova-Scotia this 7th day of August 


(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
. Notary Public 


No. 192. 


I, Philipp Ry an do solemnly declare that: I am living at Middle Mil- 
ford, Iam 42 years of age—I think I was about 16 years when I first 
went out fishing in the Gulf of St Lawrence in fishing vessels—I have 
mostly been mackerel fishing although some seasons if have been Cod- 


=. 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3263 


fishing in the Bay—LI left off going in fishing vessels in 1872—the Amer- 
ican fishermen don’t dry their nets nor cure their fish on our coasts as 
far as I know—during the last 8 or 10 years mackerel fishing has mach 
fallen off and during the last two years as far as I can hear mackerel 
fishing has almost been a failare—Porgies and clams as far as I know 
tis universally used in the Bay as bait although a few Provincial vessels 
may occasionally use herring—Porgies & clams get all from the States 
as far as I am aware—I should think that about one half of all the mack- 
erel caught by vessels is caught outside a line 3 miles from shore and $ 
inside that line—I should say that of late years about one third of the 
crew of American fishing vessels was composed of men having their 
homes in the British Provinces—I should say the cost of outfitting an 
American fishing vessel is about 4 greater than that of a Provincial 
vessel of the same size—And I do solemnly declare that I conscien- 
tiously believe the foregoing declaration to be true and make this state- 
ment by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year of her Majesty’s 
esa entituled An Act for the suppression of voluntary & extra judicial 
oaths. 
Dated Middle Milford August 7th 1877. 
PHILIP RYAN 
In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
CoUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 
I hereby Certify that the afore named Phillip Ryan voluntarily de- 
clared to and Subscribed before me the foregoing Solemn declaration 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Middle Milford in the 
County of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia this 7th day of August 
1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
Notary Public 
‘ No. 193. 


I Andrew Lourie do solemnly declare that I am living at Lower Mil- 
ford Guysboro County, Nova Scotia I am a fisherman by occupation I 
have been fishing in the Gulf of St Lawrence about thirty years up to 
5 years ago—I am 56 years of age the American fishing fleet fishing for 
mackerel begiu to arrive in the North Bay about the middle of June 
but the greater number of mackerel vessels don’t leave the States until 
after the 4th of July—Pogies and clams are the bait used for mackerel 
fishing, herring is only used as bait when the vessels are out of Pogies 
& clams—herring is not as good a bait as pogies and clams—I have 
never seen American fishermen dry their nets or cure fish on the shores 
of British Provinces—the fishing alongside of American mackerel ves- 
sels don’t lessen in my opinion the catch of mackerel by Provincial ves- 
sels I think they catch quiteas many when fishing side by side of American 

- vessels—of late years I have heard that more mackerel are caught in-shore 
but whenI went fishing the heft of mackerel that were caught were caught 
outside a line three (3) miles from shore—I have also often been codfish- 
ing in the Bay—the codfish is all caught outside a line three miles from 
shore—the bait used for codfishing is herring mackerel, squid and clams 
in the spring—the American Codfishers in the Bay procure their bait 
in the spring at the Magdalen Islands from the shore fishermen and in 
summer they catch their own bait wherever they may happen to be fish- 


¢ 


3264 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ing—lI think that the presence of American fishing vessels on our coasts is 
a pecuniary advantage to our people as they spend much money and give 
employment to many of our people And I make this solemn declara- 
tion conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of an 
Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. 


Dated at Lower Milford August 8th 1877. 
ANDREW LAURIE 


In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 
PROVINCE OF NovA ScoTIA 
COUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 


I hereby Certify that the above named Andrew Lowrie voluntarily 
declared to and Subscribed the foregoing Solemn declaration before me 

Given under'my hand and Notarial Seal at Lower Milford in the 
Connty Guysborough. Province of Nova Scoti a this 8th day of August 
1877 

(Seal.) ; JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 194. 


I Thomas England do Solemnly declare that I am living at Middle 
Milford, Guysborough County Nova Scotia, I am about 29 Years old— 
during the last 10 Years I have been out Mackerel fishing and during 
one of those 10 Seasons I have been also Codfishing in the Gulf of St 
Lawrence—lI have mostly been netfishing in the Spring and hookfishing 
during the sammer—I suppose that Provincial vessels fishing alongside 
of American Mackerel Catchers would not on that account catch a 
smaller quantity of Mackerel that they would do otherwise—Porgies 
and Clams are the bait used by Mackerel vessels—occasionally a Pro- 
vincial vessel may use a little herring as bait—My own experience is 
that more Mackerel are caught outside a line 3 miles from shore than 
inside that line—the Americans don’t dry their nets on the British 
Coasts or cure their fish there as far as I am aware—the American fish- 
ing fleet especially when Mackerel are plenty leave considerable Money 
on Our Coasts and I think that their presence on these Coasts are of 
great pecuniary advantage to our people 

And I make this Solemn declaration Conscientiously beleiving the 
same to be true and by Virtue of an Act passed during the 37th Year 
of Her Majestys Reign entitled An Act for the Suppression of Volun- 
tary and Extrajudicial Oaths. 

eee at Middle Milford in the County of Guysborough N 8S. August 
7, 1877 


his 
THOMAS x ENGLAND 
mark 
In presence of: 
OSCAR MALMROS 


PROVINCE OF NoVA SCOTIA 
CoUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 


I hereby Certify that the above named Thomas England declared to 
and subscribed the foregoing solemn declaration before me 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Middle Milford in the 
County of Guysborough N. S. this 7th day of August 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
Notary Public 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3265 
No. 195. 


I am forty six years of age and a fisherman by occupation, I am liv- 
ing at Lower Milford Guysboro County Nova Scotia I have been fish- 
ing in the North Bay about 14 years up to and inclusive of the season 
of 1873 whenever I was not out fishing in vessels I have been boat- 
fishing I have never seen American fishermen dry their nets or cure 
fish on the shores of the British Provinces—I do not think that a Pro- 
vincial vessel if well fitted out will catch a less quantity of mackerel on 
account of fishing alongside of an American mackerel fleet—I should 
think that fully one third of the crew of the American fishing fleet fish- 
ing off the Coasts of the British North American Provinces is composed 


_ of natives who are residents of these Provinces—the bait used for mack- 


“4 


erel catching is clams and porgies and these all come from the United 
States—herring is but rarely used as a bait for mackerel—the codfish 
caught by the American vessels is all caught in the deep seas more than 
3 miles from land their bait consists in fresh herring or nackerel—in the 
spring they buy it from Provincial boat fishers on the coasts of the Brit- 
ish Provinces and during the rest of the season they mostly catch their 
bait in nets on the deep seas where they happen to be for cod-fishing— 
the American Mackerel fleet begins to arrive in the North Bay about the 
middle of June but the greatest number of the American Mackerel fleet 
do not leave home for the Bay until after the 4th day of July—About 7 
or 8 years ago the mackerel fishery in the North Bay began to fall off 
and the last two years were particularly bad—ten years ago and up- 
wards the average catch of mackerel consisted in about 2 full fares for 
each vessel but during the last 6 or 7 years I don’t think that mackerel 
vessels averaged one full fare during the seasou—I think that the pres- 
ence of American fishermen on our coasts has pecuniarily benefited our 
people as they spend considerable money and give employment to many 
ofourmen And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believ- 
ing the same to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th 
year of Her Majesty’s reign entituled an Act for the suppression of volun- 
tary and extra-judicial oaths. Dated Lower Milford August 8th 1877 
RUFUS CARRIGAN 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH 


I hereby Certify that the above named Rufus Carrigan voluntarily 
declared to and subscribed before me the foregoing solemn declaration 
Given under my hand’and Notarial Seal at Lower Milford in the 
County of Guysborough Province ot Nova Scotia this 8th day of August 
1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 
Notary Public 


No. 196. 


I Edward Walsh do solemuly declare that I am living at Lower Mil- 
ford Guysboro County, Nova Scotia, I am by occupation a fisherman— 
for ten or twelve years I have been fishing in American vessels from 
about 1853 to 1865 since that time I have been net-fishing except one 
season 5 years ago when I was out fishing in a Nova Scotia vessel in 
the North Bay—the mackerel fishers from the United States begin to 
arrive in the North Bay about the 15th of June but the greater number 
of American Mackerel catchers don’t arrive until after the 4th of July— 


205 F 


. 


3266 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


during late years the mackerel runs closer into the land but formerly 
when mackerel were still plenty say 10 to 15 years ago about as many 
mackerel were caught both by Provincials and Americans outside a line 3 
miles from shore as there were in-shore—the American Codfishers in 
the North Bay get their bait in the spring from the fishermen on the 
coasts of Nova Scotia and the Magdalen Islands; during the summer 
the American Codfishers in the Bay catch their own bait on the deep 
seas wherever they may happen to fish—Il think on an average an 
American Codfisher in the North Bay buys about 30 barrels of herring 
on the coasts of the Provinces for bait—I think that the presence of 
American fishermen on our coasts of considerable pecuniary advantage 
to our people as they spend much money and employ many of our men. 
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same 
to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year of Her 
Majesty’s reign entitled An Act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extra-judicial oaths Dated at Lower Milford Guysboro County N.S. 
August 8th, 1877 
EDWARD WELSH 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
CouTtY OF GUYSBOROUGH 


I hereby Certify that the above named Edward Walsh voluntarily 
declared to and subscribed before the foregoing Solemn declaration 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Lower Milford in the 
County of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia this 8th day of Au- 
gust 1877. 

(Seal.) JAMES G McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 197. 


I, Charles Lowrie do solemnly declare that I am living at Middle 
Millford County of Guysboro Province of Nova Scotia—I am a fisher- 
man by occupation, | am 45 years old; about 20 years ago I went first 
fishing in vessels in the Gulf of St Lawrence and since that time I have 
been out in the Bay in vessels fishing for Cod and mackerel 10 or 11 
seasons—the last season I was Bay fishing was that of the great August 
storm of 1873 when I was not fishing in vesseis I have been boat fishing 
and I follow that now Some of the American Mackerel vessels come 
to the North Bay as early as about the 10th of June but the greater 
number of them don’t leave home for the North Bay until after the 4th 
of July—I should think that the average size of an American Mackerel 
is about 60 to 65 tons new measurement—the crew of a mackerel vessel of 
say 60 tons is about from 15 to 17 hands—during the years previous to the 
last 10 years the American mackerel vessels in the Bay averaged I think 
2 trips a season landing one trip in the Strait of Canso for shipment to 
the States sometimes however the American vessels went home with 
their fare and then returned to the North Bay for a second trip—On an 
average I should say that during seasons when mackerel were plenty as 
many of them were caught outside a line 3 miles from shore as inside 
that line both by Provincial and American vessels—Porgies & clams 
are the bait used for mackerel, some Provincial vessels occasionally use 
however herring but this is not considered as so good a bait—I do think 
that Provincial mackerel vessels catch as many mackerel when fishing 
alongside of an American Mackerel fleet as they do when fishing by 
themselves provided taey are as well fitted out in every respect and 
have as good bait as the American vessels ; this is however often not the 


—_— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3267 


case—the American codfisheries in the North Bay use herring and 
mackerel as bait, the trawlers buy most of their bait from shore fisher- 
wen but the hook codfisheries catch their own bait on the deep sea 
wherever they may be fishing—the codfish is all caught by the Ameri- 
ean vessels outside a line 3 miles from shore—the codfishers going to 
the grand banks of Newfoundland buy nearly all the bait they use of 
Provincial fishermen they run in usually 2 or 3 times to bait up—some 
of their bait, especially squid, they catch themselves on the grand 
banks—it pays the boatfishers better to sell their herring and mackerel 
to the American Codfishers in the North Bay and on the Grand Banks 
than to salt and pack their herring and mackerel because the price they 
get is usually the same and they save packing, salting and the barrels 
—I don’t think that the mackerel vessels in the North Bay during the 
last 5 or 6 years have averaged per season one full fare the mackerel 
fishery in the Bay having fallen off so much—The fleet of American 
herring vessels going to the Magdalene Islands averages I should say 
15 to 16 vessels each spring, these hire on an average three men and 
three boats each in this Province for their trip to the Magdalenes’ last- 
ing about 3 weeks paying for a man and his boat from $30 to $35,°.°,— 
one spring while I was there, there were hardly any herring, last season 
when I was there they averaged about 200 barrels a vessels and during 
good seasons they will average fully 1000 barrels of herring each—the 
otber seasons while I was there that is about 5 besides the 3 mentioned 
the catch of herring was good—I think that about one half of the Crew 
of American fishing vessels fishing off the coasts of the British North 
American Provinces consist of men who have their homes in these 
Provinces. I think the presence of American fishing vessels on our 
coasts and in our harbors a great pecuniary advantage to our people; 
and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same 
to be true and by virtue of an Act passed during the 37th year of Her 
Majesty’s reign entituled an Act for the suppression of voluntary and 
extrajudicial oaths. 
Dated Middle Milford August 9th 1877. : 
CHARLES LOWRIE 
In presence of : 
OSCAR MALMROS 


PROVINCE OF NovA SCOTIA 
CouNTY OF GUYSBOROUGH N. S. 


I hereby Certify that the above named Charles Lowrie declared to 
and subscribed the foregoing Solemn declaration before me 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Middle Milford in the 
County of Guysborough, Nova Scotia this 9th day of August 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 
Notary Public 
No. 198. 


Nicholas Nicholson says and deposes on vath as follows: I am living 
at Port Hastings, Strait of Canso, am by trade a fisherman, have during 
the last six years been out fishing in American fishing vessels—my age 
is 30 years, I was codfishing I meant to say six years besides having 
been fishing for mackerel during two seasons, that is, last summer and 
the summer of four years ago—‘he codfish that is caught by the Amer- 
icans is all caught outside a line 3 miles from shore and of the mackerel, 


as far as my experience goes, fully two thirds is caught by the Ameri- 


cans outside a line 3 miles from shore and about one third inside that 


3268 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


line—towards the latter part of the season it is that mackerl is caught 
more inshore—the Americans do not dry their nets on our coasts but 
preserve them by salting them in hogsheads—I have often seen Ameri- 
can mackerel fishing vessels and Provincial fishing side by side and my 
experience is that the vessels of the Provinces catch quite as many 
mackerel when fishing side by side with an American fleet as they do 
when not alongside of them—codfishers (American) in the Galf of St 
Lawrence catch most of their bait, herring principally, and mackerel in 
the bay, in nets, much more than 3 miles from shore—the codfishers 
going to the banks of Newfoundland partly buy their bait at Provincial 
Ports, about enough to last them three weeks, partly they catch it on 
the banks, if they can get squids, they prefer it—I think that fully one 
half of the fishermen of the American vessels fishing off the Coasts of 
the British Provinces are natives of the British Provinces who continue 
to live in the Provinces—I think that the American fishing vessels on 
our coasts is a great benefit to our people because they spend much 
money among us and give employment to many of our men. 
NICHOLAS NICHOLSON 
Port HASTINGS Aug Ist 1877. 


Sworn to & subscribed before me 
this lst day of Aug 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. 8. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
Port HASTINGS COUNTY OF INVERNESS 


I hereby Certify that the above named Nicholas Nicholson voluntarily 
made and in my presence subscribed the foregoing affidavit 
Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Port Hastings aforesaid 
this Ist day of August 1877 
(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 
Notary Public 
No. 199. 


Duncan McEachren being duly sworn says: lam living at Craignish 
County of Inverness C. B.—I am about 45 years old—this is the 3d sum- 
mer that Iam at home not fishing, 3 years ago! was fishing for mackerel 
and ever since 1853 up to 3 years ago I have been mackerel fishing every 
summer mostly in American vessels, the Americans do not as far as I 
know dry their nets on our coasts nor do tbey cure their fish on the coasts 
of the Provinces—take one year with another and I should say that on 
an average the American mackerel fishing vessels take more mackerel 
outside a line 3 miles from shore than inside—all the vessels I ever was 
in got their bait from the States—when I was out fishing I always saw 
the Americans raise the mackerel first, they, the.mackerel often seemed 
to follow the American fleet because they throw out much bait—I think 
that the Provincial fishing vessels catch as much mackerel when fishing 
side by side with an American fleet than they would or than they do 
when not fishing along side of the Americans—I suppose that all of two 
thousand men from the British Provinces that is men who have their 
homes in the Provinces are annually employed as fishermen in American 
fishing vessels—it is a benefit to the people of the Provinces that the 
American yessels visit our coasts because they expend much money ib 
the coasts and give employment to many people. 

DUNCAN McEACHERN 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3269 


Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2nd day of August 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U 8 Consul 


* 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF INVERNESS 


I hereby Certify that the above named Duncan McEachren voluntarily 
made and subscribed in my presence the foregoing affidavit at Creignish 
in the said County this 2nd day of August 1877 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal at Cregnish aforesaid this 
2nd day of August 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 200. ; 


George Laidlaw, being duly sworn says: I am 39 years old; am by 
occupation a fisherman; I was out fishing in vessels, mostly American, 
from 1851 to 1872 inclusive—if fishing were good I would still go out 
fishing and may do so next season in case mackerel are plenty—two sea- 
sons or part of them I fished on the American shore—during the time I 
was out fishing the American fleet in the Gulf of St Lawrence fishing for 
mackerel would average per year [ think nearly 300 vessels—during the 
first year I was out the fleet of Provincial mackerel vessels in the Gulf was 
larger than during any of the ten following years—I don’t think that dur- 
ing that entire time the Provincial vessels would average per year more 
than fifty sails in the Gulf—the mackerel fisheries fell off much during the 
last 6 or 8years—I don’t think that during the last 6 or 8 years more than 
one quarter of the mackerel have been caught of the quantity caught per 
season say 10 years ago—during the last 3 years there were not any 
mackerel in the Gulf of St Lawrence worth going for—A long time ago, 
about 18 years, the American mackerel vessels began to come to the 
Gulf as early as the 5th of June and would come thick about the middle 
of June—during the last 10 years the big American mackerel fleet did 
not leave home until after the 4th of July—during some seasons mack- 
erl will keep more in-shore during other seasons more off-shore—A mer- 
ican and Provincial vessels, when the former have the privilege, fish 
equally much in-shore and off shore—I think that when the Americans 
are kept outside a line 3 miles from shore that most mackerel perhaps % 
are caught outside by Provincial vessels because the Americans have a 
heavy fleet and heave over much bait and the mackerel follow them—I 
don’t think it hurts the Americans much to be kept outside the 3 mile 
limits,—they catch during the time they are kept in limits about as many 
mackerel as when they are allowed to fish in-shore—I think about % of 
the mackerel I ever caught were caught outside of the 3 mile line—I 
think that an American mackerel vessel averages about 70 tons or 75 
tons old measurement—the bait for mackerei is Porgies and clam—it is 
used alike by Provincials and Americans although occasionally the for- 
mer use also herring but this is an exception—fishing alongside an 
American fleet does not lessen the catch of mackerel by Provincial ves- 
sels, on the contrary the more vessels the more bait and mackerel— 
I have been codfishing during two seasons or rather part of two seasons 
fishing for inackerel afterwards—Ametrican codfish vessels average a 
crew of from 10 to 12 hands—the codfishers going to the grand banks of 
Newfoundland buy from Provincial people about 40 barrels of fresh her- 
ring on going to the banks and afterwards catch a small portion of their 
supply of bait on the grand banks going again to the British coasts to 


- 


3270 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


buy bait as they need it—codfish is caught outside the 3 mile line except 
once in a while when cod is caught inshore—the Americans as far as 
mackerel catching goes have according to my estimate at all seasons, 
when allowed to fish in-shore, caught about 3d of their entire catch out- 
side of the 3 mile line—the codfishers don’t catch any of their bait in- 
side 3 miles from shore except once in a while and not worth speaking 
of—the American fishermen don’t dry their nets on the British Coasts, 
they pickle their nets on their vessels in order to preserve them, nor do 
they cure their fish on our coasts—the best two seasons I have ever been 
mackerel fishing were on the American shore and it is my opinion that 
if the Provincial vessels were as well fitted out as the American and if 
they employed as many of our most experienced fishermen as the Amer- 
icans do and had as good bait that the fishery on the American Coasts 
north of the Chesapeake Bay would be as valuable to Provincials as the 
British Atlantic shores to the Americans—I think the presence of Amer- 
ican fishing vessels on our coasts aconsiderable advantage to our people 
because they leave a good deal of money 
Dated Near Low Point Inverness County Aug 4th 1877 
a GEORGE LAIDLAW 


Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of August 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS 
. U S Consul 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF INVERNESS 


I hereby Certify that the above named George Laidlaw voluntarily 
made and Subscribed in my presence the foregoing affidavit at Low 
Point in said County this 4th day of August 1877 

Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 4th August 1877 

(Seal.) ® JAMES G. McKEEN 
Notary Public 


No. 201. 


I, Roderick McDonald of Low Point, N.S. do declare and say on oath 
as follows: Iam living at Low Point Inverness Co. Nova Scotia, am 
over thirty years old, have been fishing for about 12 years until three 
years ago, when I knocked off because mackerel was scarce in the Bay 
aud it did not pay—the mackerel fishing has much fallen off during the last 
6 or 7 years—during these 6 or 7 years the average yearly catch has not 
been over 4 of what it was 8 or ten years ago—during some seasons 
they will be much more off shore at other seasons more inshore—during 
hot weather they will work more off-shore—the.best place for mackerel 
I have ever seen is on Bradley Bank about twenty miles from North 
Cape P. E. I.—sometimes the Americans when mackerel is plenty will 
catch about $d of their entire catch outside a line three miles from shore 
but striking an average I think that during season when mackerel is 
plenty Americans will catch about one half outside and the other half 
inside a line three miles from shore—the only bait American Mackerel 
vessels use is Porgies and clam and that is the bait nearly always used 
by Provincial vessels but sometimes the latter use herring which is not 
a good bait and would not do at all to use as bait in fishing alongside— 
of vessels throwing out Porgies & clam—All the Porgies and clam used 
as bait in the Gulf of St Lawrence comes from the United States—I 
think the Provincial fishermen catch as many mackerel fishing along: 
side of an American fleet as they would do if no Americans were in the 


—— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3271 


Gulf because a large fleet heaves over much bait and raises mackerel 
better than a small number of vessels could do—I think that about half 
of our fishermen trom Cape Breton and on the Nova Scotia side of the 
Strait of Canso find employment in American fishing vessels and if they 
were not so employed they would have very hard times. I think the 
coming of American fishermen to our coasts is a great benefit to our 
people especially when the American fleet in these waters is large. So 
help me God. 


his 
RODERICK + McDONALD 
mark 
Sworn to & subscribed in presence of 
JAMES G. McCKEEN 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
Low PoInt INVERNESS COUNTY 


I hereby certify that on the 3d day of August 1877 personally ap- 
peared before me the above named Roderick McDonald and was by me 
duly sworn to the above and foregoing Declaration which he subscribed 
by affixing his mark at the foot of said declaration 

Attested : OSCAR MALMROS 

U. 8. Consul. 


PROVINCE OF Nova SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF INVERNESS 


I hereby Certify That the above named Roderick McDonald volunta- 
rily made and subscribed in my prence the foregoing affidavit at Low 
Point in said County. 

Gived under my hand and Notarial Seal this 3rd day of August 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN, 

Notary Public. 
No. 202, 


I, Daniel McDonald do say on oath that: Iam living at Low Point 
Inverness County NovaScotia, am a fisherman by occupation, I have been 
fishing mostly in American but partly also in Nova Scotia fishing ves- 
sels J knocked off fishing about 4 years ago because the fisheries that 
is mackerel fishing had so much fallen off that it did not pay to go fish- 
ing; ever since the last 6 or 7 years the mackerel fisheries have been 
getting worse—10 or 12 years or longer there were about 400 or 500 
American mackerel vessels in the bay of St Lawrence, during the 
same time there were about a hundred Provincial fishing vessels in the 
Bay—the only bait used for mackerel, or almost the only, consists in 
Porgies and clams and these all come from the United States whether 
used by Provincials or Americans; a few English vessels use also a lit- 
tle fat herring but this is used in quantities hardly worth mentioning 
the Americans neither dry their nets nor cure their fish on the British 
coasts—I don’t think there were over fifty mackerel fishing vessels 
either Provincials or Americans in the Bay of St Lawrence—I have also 
been codfishing and know that the codfish caught by Americans is 
all. caught more than 3 miles three miles from shore—during most 
of th- seasons I went fishing by far the greater portion of mackerel 
caught by the American fishing vessels were caught outside a line 3 
miles from shore, in some years the mackerel keep more outside in the 
deep sea at other seasons they are found in greater numbers in-shore— 
of late years the mackerel have kept close to the shore—ten years ago 


/ 


3272 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and for many years before that mackerel were much more plenty off- 
shore, say from 4 to 10 miles from shore and a large proportion were 
caught still farther off from land—I think that the Provincial vessels 
in case they are as good and well fitted out as the American would 
ecateh as much mackerel and I don’t think that fishing alongside of 
American fishing vessels interferes with the catch of Provincial vessels, 
I think they catch quite as many mackerel fishing side by side with the 
Americans as they would do otherwise—I think that about one half of 
the crew of the American vessels visiting the Gulf of St Lawrence is 
composed of Natives of the Provinces who have their homes in these 
Provinces. The American fishing vessels buy large quantities of veg- 
etables, meal, and many other articles, they spend much money among 
people and when the American fishing fleet on our coasts is small money 
is scarce when there are plenty of American fishing vessels on our 
coasts there is plenty of money among the people; and I do solemnly 
swear that the foregoing statements now made by me are true accord- 
ing to the best of my belief and knowledge; so help me God. 
Dated Low Point Inverness Co. August 3d 1877. 


his 
DANIEL + McDONALD 


mark 


Subscribed & sworn to before me Aug 3d 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF INVERNESS 


I hereby Certify that the above namd Daniel McDonald voluntarily 
made and Subscribed in my presence the foregoing affidavit at Low 
Point in said County ; 

Given under my hand & notarial Seal this 3rd day of August 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. McCKEEN 

Notary Public 
No. 203. 
e 

I, Dougald McKinnon of Long Point, Inverness County, Nova Scotia, 
say and depose on oath that: I am living at Long Point, Inverness 
County Nova Scotia—I have been fishing for about the last twenty 
years partly in American partly in Provincial vessels, mostly in the 
former and fishing for mackerel; for part of seven or 8 seasons I have 
been codfishing in the Bay or on the banks of Newfoundland and after- 
wards fishing tor mackerel—the crew of a mackerel fishing vessel aver- 
ages 13 or 14 hands—the crew of American codfishing vessels averages 
now from 10 to 12 hands—the average wages on codfishing vessels are 
from twenty five to fifty dollars a hand per month according to the ex- 
perience of each person in a crew—of late years most men go on shares— 
I should think that about from $ to 4 of the crew of American fishing 
vessels is composed of fishermen who are british subjects and living in 
the British Provinces—during the last 5 or 6 years mackerel fishing has 
very much fallen off—in this Bay i. e. the Bay of St Lawrence the catch 
has iallen off in my opinion over fifty per cent last year it was almost 
an entire failure—during the times that mackerel were plenty that is 
before the last ten years much the greater quantity taken by Americans 
were taken outside a line 3 miles from the shore—but since they have 
become scarce they have mostly been taken inside that line—I don’t 
think that Provincial vessels catch any smaller quantity of mackerel on 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3273 


account of fishing along side of an American fleet—a large fleet of ves- 
sels has a much better chance of finding the mackerel than a few vessels 
by themselves would have—I would rather take my chance in the Bay 
mackerel fishing when there were 200 vessels in the Bay than when 
there are only twenty vessels—according to my estimate the average 
expenditure of an American fishing vessel in the several ports of the 
British Provinces during the season would amount to about $200 or 
over, that is of a vessel making only one trip during the season—in case 
a vessel lands her cargo on these coasts for re-shipment to the States 
I should think that all her expenses including a complete re-outfit would 


_average a thousand dollars or over—I think the coming of American 


* 
¥ 


. a 
al i 


fishing vessels to our coasts a greater advantage to our people, especi- 
ally when the American fishing vessels come in great numbers. the 
American fishermén do not dry their nets or cure their fish on the coasts 
of the British Provinces—AlIl the codfish caught by Americans is caught 
outside a line 3 miles from shore—there are about on an average, taking 
the last 10 years, from three to four American halibut fishers off the 
Coasts of the British waters, they, the halibut are as a rule caught out- 
side a line three miles from shore; itis an exception when they are caught 
inside that line—The bait for mackerel mostly comes from the States— 
there is no bait in the Dominion for mackerel fishers—The American 
eodfishers bring their bait partly from home, partly they buy it in the 
Provinces or catch outside the 3 miles from shore. And I do solemnly 
declare on oath that according to the best of my knowledge and belief 
the above and foregoing statements made by me are true. So help me 
God. 
Dated Long Point, Inverness Co. August 2nd 1877. 
DOUGALD McKINNON 


Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2nd day of August 1877 
OSCAR MALMROS 
U. 8. Consul 


PROVINCE OF NoVA SCOTIA 
COUNTY OF INVERNESS 


I hereby Certify that the above named Dougald McKinnon volunta- 
rily made and subscribed in my presence the foregoing affidavit 

Given under my hand & Notarial Seal at Long Point County of Inver- 
ness this 2nd day of August 1877 

(Seal.) JAMES G. McKEEN 
Notary Public 
No. 204. 
DOMINION OF CANADA 
PROVINCE OF Nova ScorTia 
HALIFAX Ss 

I Moses C. Morgan of Halifax in the County of Halifax in the Prov- 
ince of Nova Scotia Merchant being solemnly sworn do make oath and 
Say as follows: : 

1st I say that I am at present a fish dealer in the City of Halifax en- 
gaged in buying fish for export—and have been so engaged in the said 
City for about eight years. I am intimately acquainted with the fish 
trade and generally with all matters relating to the fisheries of Nova 
Scotia and Prince Edward Island. 

I was formerly of Gloucester in the State of Massachusetts, where I 
was connected with the fishery business aforesaid. 

2nd. I say that it has for several years been the practice for the Col- 


3274 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


onial fishermen, who have been engaged in the mackerel fishery along 
the shores of Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton to procure a por- 
tion of their bait for so fishing from United States Fishermen the said 
bait consisting of pogies or manhaden being brought from the United 
States by the fishermen of that Country. : 

3rd The boat fisheries of Colonial fishermen are prosecuted for the 
taking of Cod, haddock, hake, pollock, herrings, lobsters and mackeral. 
Of the fish so taken in boats by Colonial fishermen, the largest portion 
is codfish, as is shewn by the fact that the product of the Codfishery of 
Nova Scotia in 1876 amounted to Two Millions five hundred and forty 
nine thousand dollars while the other descriptions of fish taken in the 
same year, exclusive of mackeral, amounted to two millions three bun- 
dred and forty two thousand dollars more. The in-shore mackeral fish- 
ery of Nova Scotia amounted that year, as appears *by the Report of 
the Canadian Fishery Commissioner, only to about seven hundred and 
fourteen thousand dollars constituting not more than about one eighth 
of the aggregate product of the inshore Colonial boat fishery of Nova 
Scotia. 

4th Of the Makeral caught inshore, that is to say, within three miles 
of the shore in boats by the fishermen of this Province not more than 
one twentieth part of the aggregate catch is taken on that part of the 
Nova Scotia or Cape Breton Coast which is frequented by mackeral 
fishermen from the United States and which is that part of the coast 
lying on the Northern side of the Island of Cape Breton and stretching 
between the Strait of Canso and Sydney in said Island. 

5th Cod and hallibut are caught by United States fishermen only in 
the deep sea or on the several off-shore fishing banks outside of the 
three Mile limit. 

6th The Mackeral taken by United States Fishermen in-shore are 
caught only around the shores of the Magdalen Islands around the 
shores of Prince Edward Island on the east coast of New Brunswick 
lying in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the North Coast of Cape Bre- 
ton extending from the Strait of Canso to Sydney. All other mackeral 
caught by United States fishermen off the Coasts of British North Amer- 
ica are taken outside of the three mile limit in the Gulf of Saint Law- 
rence. 

7th The inshore fisheries are prosecuted by United States fishermen 
on the Coasts of the British North American Provinces solely for mack- 
eral and not in boats, but in vessels which only approach the shore to 
fish during the months of July August, September and October. At 
other seasons they prosecute the mackeral fishery in the deep sea fish- 
eries of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence outside of the three mile limit. 

8th The whole mackeral catch by United States fishermen iu British 
North American waters in the year 1876 I believe will not exceed in 
value thirty thousand dollars, the reason for the catch being so small 
was that for some years past the Mackeral fishery could be prosecuted 
more advantageously along the Coasts of the United States than on the 
coasts of British North America. Last year was one of the most profit- 
able and productive years on record for the mackeral fisheries on the 
United States Coast. 

Ith. The in-shore fisheries, that is to say: the fisheries within the 
three mile limit on the British North American Coast are only prose- 
cuted by United States fishermen for mackeral and in vessels, not in 
boats— 

10th. The catch of Mackerel both inshore and offshore by Provincial 
fishermen constitutes only about one sixth of the aggregate catch of 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3275 


fish. Of the Mackerel caught by United States fishermen on the Brit- 
ish ‘North American Coast not more than one fourth are caught inshore 
or within the three mile limit. The rest are caught outside the three 
mile limit. All other descriptions of fish caught by United States fish- 
ermen are caught on the banks and constitute the great bulk of the fish- 
eries. 

The proportions which I have mentioned in this section of my affida- 
vit are arrived at by taking an average of the results of fishing seasons 
through several years. 

Bat little injury if any in my opinion can result to Colonial fishermen 
from United States fishermen coming inshore to fish for mackeral. The 
large quantity of bait thrown from United States fishing vessels Attracts 
the fish in large numbers and enables the Colonial fishermen in boats 
to prosecute the fishery much more successfully than they could other- 
wise do; and experience has shewn that the free access of United 
States fishermen to the inshore fishery has not diminished the Colonial 
boat fisheries, but that such boat fisheries have been steadily increasing 
since such free access was given and so far from its being found disad- 
vantageous to fishermen to have a number of vessels fishing in com- 
pany. Itis quite usual and customary for large nambers of such ves- 
sels to be engaged fishing for a length of time side by side and the 
practical result of such a mode of fishing is that the fish are attracted 
by the bait thrown in large quantities from the vessels as aforesaid 
and the fishing of Colonial fishermen in boats is greatly facilitated 
thereby. 

11th Another advantage which Colonial fishermen derive from United 
States fishermen having access to the British North American fisheries, 
is by the former procuring bait from the latter as deposed to in the 
second paragraph of this affidavit. A further advantage to the Colonial 
fishermen is that United States fishermen buy from the Colonial fisher- 
men herrings for bait to prosecute the Bank codfishery. The United 
States fishermen do not catch herring in British North American waters 
but buy such quantities as they require for bait for the Cod fishery from 
the Colonial fishermen. And another advantage accruing to the Prov- 
inces from the United States fishermen having access to the British 
North American fisheries arises from the fact that the United States 
fishermen purchase from traders in the Colonies supplies, not only of 
bait, but of ice, provisions, clothing, barrels salt, nets, twines:and many 
other articles. The purchases of bait and such other articles as are 
herein mentioned give employment to large numbers of persons and give 
avery important trade to a number of settlements along the coast, 
such as Prospect, Canso, Port Mulgrave and Louisburg. At Prospect 
alone about one thousand nets were set to catch herring for bait to be 
sold to United States fishermen last season. Ice to the quantity of 
seven hundred or eight hundred tons is usually bought there by the 
United States fishermen and in that place alone last season the purchases 
by the last named fishermen amounted from ten thousand dollars to 
fifteen thousand dollars. 

The procuring of bait on the coasts of the Colonies by the United 
States fishermen is quite as beneficial to the Colonists as to those fisher- 
men and the herring so supplied to them as bait is not used for mack- 
eral nor for any fishery inshore, but for the Bank fishery. During the 
last ten or fifteen years very few of the United States fishermen use salt 
bait they formerly brought salt bait with them and caught fresh fish, 
as they could for fresh bait, but now most of them procure their fresh 


3276 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


bait from the Coast and keep it in the ice houses, with which most of 
their vessels are furnished. ‘ 

12th. During the last few years the mackeral fishery in the Gulf of 
Saint Lawrence has been almost abandoned by Colonial and United 
States fishing vessels and is being almost entirely prosecuted in boats 
by Colonial fishermen. The fishery on the American Coast has been so 
much more productive of late years as to attract many of those, who 
formerly came to the Gulf; And the decline of that fishery in the Gulf 
being such as to cause many of the Colonial fishing vessels that formerly 
resorted there to be employed in other ways. 

At the time of the treaty the mackeral fishery along the British North 
American coast was considered valuable and important to the United 
States fishermen, but at the present time the deep sea fisheries and the 
fisheries on their own Coasts are principally relied on by them. 

13th. A very large quantity of fresh fish, consisting of Salmon and 
halibut and in the winter of frozen herrings caught by Colonial fisher- 
men find a market in the United States probably from two hundred 
thousand to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth of fresh Sal- 
mon alone being exported annually from the British Provinces of North 
America to the United States. A large number of vessels load annually 
at Fortune Bay in the Island of Newfoundland with frozen berrings 
there caught by Colonial fishermen for the United States Market and 
employment is thereby given and benefits received by large numbers of 
Colonial fishermen who are engaged in that branch of the fisheries, 
which is the principal means of support of a large part of the local 
population during the winter season. At Grand Manaan and vicinity 
also large quantities of herring are caught by Colonial fishermen for the 
United States Market and these are largely shipped to the United States 
in Colonial vessels, and the same statement herein deposed to, as re- 
gards the benefits accruing to the population at Fortune Bay applies to 
that at Grand Manaan. 

Although previous to the Washington Treaty fresh fish as herein 
enumerated were admitted to the United States Markets free of duty, 
yet their admission was subject to changes in legislation from time to 
time instead of the Markets being permanently open as at present. 

14th. The United States afford the only markets for mackerel of 
number one and number two grade all fat herring not consumed in the 
Dominion ‘and of number one Salmon caught by Colonial fishermen. 
Such descriptions of fish find a market in the United States alone. 

15th In this affidavit the statements which I have made in the pres- 
ent tense apply to the state of things which has existed for the last 
seven years except where I have expressed a different meaning. — 
M. Ce MORGAN. 


_ Sworn to before me at Halifax in the County of Halifax in the Prov- 
ince of Nova Scotia this 16th day of August A D 1877. 
(Seal.) W. D. HARRINGTON. J. P. 


No. 205. 


I Richard Beazley of Halifax in the County of Halifax fisherman 
being solemnly sworn do make oath and say as follows: 


_ Ist I say that for forty years last past, I have been engaged in the 
fisheries of Nova Scotia, Labrador, Newfoundland Prince Edward 
Island, New Brunswick, Gulf of St Lawrence and Baie. des Chaleurs 
besides the deep sea fisheries as a fisherman and dealer in fish and have 


—— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3277 


been for that time intimately acquainted with the condition of the said 
fisheries and the manner in which fishing has been carried on by 
Colonial and United States fishermen. 

2nd The same kinds and descriptions of fish that are found on the 
coasts and shores of the British North American Provinces are to be 
found on the coasts and shores of the United States which are now 
made available to Colonial fishermen by the Treaty of Washington and 
on the coasts and sbores of the United States several kinds of fish are 
procured which cannot be found on the coasts and shores of the 
British North American Provinces such as bass, porgies and other 
kinds, . 

3rd Nearly all the bait for mackeral used by Colonial fishermen is 
and must be procured by them from the United States fishermen who 
come to the coast of British North America under the provisions of the 
Treaty of Washington. The bait chiefly used for mackeral and the best 
bait are porgies which are all taken on the coast of the United States 
and generally within three miles of the shore. It is a great benetit to 
Colonial fishermen to be able to procure such bait from the United 
States fishermen. 

4th The United States fishermen who come to the fisheries off the 
coast of British North America principally pursue the deep sea fisheries 
outside the three mile limit. About five sixths of the fish taken by 
United States fishermen off the British North American coast are taken 
outside the three mile limit. 

5th The fish taken inshore by United States fishermen is almost 
wholly mackerel and not more than one fourth of the mackerel taken by 
them in the vicinity of the British North American coast is taken inside 
the three mile limit while about three fourths, taking the average of 
seasons is procured outside the three mile limit, The fishery in British 
North American waters is not carried on in boats by the United States 
fishermen but in vessels and when they are fishing inshore for mackeral 
it is principally around the shores of the Magdalen Islands and of Prince 
Edward Island and on the coast of New Brunswick, in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence and on the north coast of Cape Breton. The Colonial fisher- 
men fish principally in boats, 

6th Colonial fishermen are benefitted and not injured in the prosecu- 
tion of the fisheries by United States fishermen being allowed to fish 
within the inshore limits. By such permission being givep the Colonial 
fishermen are enabled to purchase their bait from the United States 
fishermen which is a great. advantage to the former and besides that the 
throwing of bait by United States fishing vessels attracts the fish and 
enables the Colonial fishermen fishing in boats to fish much more suc- 
cessfully than they could otherwise do. For this reason it is quite com- 
mon for a large number of fishing vessels and boats to be seen engaged 
in fishing for a length of time side by side such a mode of fishing being 
found advantageous ‘to all but especially to those who are fishing in 
boats. 

7th. The cost of fishing vessels and of the outfits for thesame in the Brit- 
ish Provinces is at least twenty-five per cent lower than the cost thereof 
in the United States and as a consequence of this difference in prices a 
large number of United States fishing vessels procure their outfits in 
the British North American Provinces. 

8th The United States fiskermen use herring almost entirely for bait 
in the codfishery which they prosecute on the Banks and iu the deep 
sea fishery outside the three mile limit and they procure almost all the 
herring and other bait which they use for that purpose from Colonial 


3278 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


fishermen. In addition to bait the United States fishermen purchase 
from the people of the British Provinces large quantities of ice, salt, 
barrels, provisions, clothing, nets, twines, and other articles used in the 
prosecution of the fisheries. The trade with the United States fisher- 
men for such articles is of great benefit to the people of the British 


Provinces and is the principal trade of some of the ports of Nova Sco- — 


tia. Large quantities of fresh fish are also purchased by Americans in 
some parts of the British Provinces for shipment to the United States 
and such shipments are mostly made in Colonial vessels. 

9th Of late years the drying and curing of fish by the United States 
fishermen is principally done on the decks of their vessels and they sel- 
dom land to dry nets or to cure fish or to repack them or to transship 
cargoes. . 

10th The Treaty of Washington so faras the privileges of the fisheries 
are concerned is I verily believe as beneficial to the people of the British 
Provinces as to the people of the United States, both will be equally 
benefitted by its provisions being carried out. 

11th For all number one and number two mackerel, for all fat her- 
ring not consumed at home and for all number one salmon from the 
British Provinces the United States afford the only market and the 


duties paid on the exportation of such fish from the British Provinces | 


before the Treaty of Washington amounted to a very large sum of 
money annually and the opening of the United States markets by said 
Treaty to such exportations has been a very great benefit to the people 
of the British Provinces. 

12th For several years past the inshore fisheries of the British Prov- 
inces have not been so much resorted to by United States fishermen as 
they were formerly and they are being less and less resorted to every 
year by such fishermen, one reason for this fact is the change in the 
modes of fishing pursued by such fishermen and another is the fact that 
the mackerel fishery on the coasts of the British Provinces has for sev- 
eral years past been declining while it has been improving during the 
same period on the coasts of the United States. 

13th The fisheries on the coasts of the United States would be very 
nearly as valuable to Colonial fishermen as to the United States fisher- 
men if the former chose to avail themselves of the concession of the 
Washington Treaty in that particular, and latterly they are beginning 
to avail themselves of that fishery which is annually becoming more 
valuable. 

14th In this affidavit the statements which I have made in the pres- 
ent tense apply to the state of things which has existed for the past six 
years except where I have expressed a different meaning. 

RICHARD BEAZLEY 


Sworn to before me at Halifax in the County of Halifax this Thirteenth 
day of June A D 1877 
(Seal.) WM McKERRON 
Notary Public 


No. 206. 


_ I Jobn Glazebrook of Halifax in the County of Halifax in the Prov- 
ince of Nova Scotia Fisherman being solemnly sworn do make oath and 
say as follows: 

Ist I say that for forty five years last past I have been engaged in 
the fisheries of British North America and have been for that time inti- 
mately acquainted with the condition of the said fisheries and the man- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3279 


ner in which fishing has been carried on by the Colonial and United 
States fishermen. 

2nd The same kinds and descriptions of fish that are found in the 
fisheries mentioned in the last paragraph are to be found on the coasts 
and shores of the United States which are now thrown open to Colonial 
fishermen by the Treaty of Washington and also several other kinds 
such as Bass and pogies which are not to be found on the coasts and 
shores of British North America. 

3rd The greater part of the bait used by Colonial fishermen in the 
mackeral fishery is procured from the United States and is furnished to 
said fishermen by United Statés fishermen who come to the coasts of the 
Provinces under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington. The best 
and most commonly used bait for mackerel are pogies which are taken 
from the coasts of the United States and generally inshore and the pro- 
curing of such bait is a great benefit to Colonial fishermen. 

4th Much the larger proportion of the fisheries pursued by United 
States fishermen off the Atlantic Coast of British North America con- 
sists of the deep sea fisheries outside of the three mile limit. I believe 
that at least three fourths if not five sixths of the fish taken by United 
States fishermen off the shores of the British Provinces are taken out- 
side the three mile limit. 

5th The United States fishermen pursue the inshore fisheries almost 
solely for mackerel and of the mackerel taken by such fishermen on the 
coasts of British North America much the smaller part—in fact only 
about one fourth is taken inside while about three fourths are taken 
outside the three mile limit taking the average of seasons. The United 
States fishermen do not fish in boats when in British North American 
waters but in vessels. The Colonial fishermen fish prine¢ipally in boats. 
The United States fishermen procure the mackerel which they catch in 
shore chiefly around the shores of the Magdalen Islands around the 
shores of Prince Edward Island—on the east coast of New Brunswick 
in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and on the north coast of Cape Breton. 

6th Colonial fishermen are benefitted and not injured in the prosecu- 
tion of the fisheries by the United States fishermen being allowed to 
fish within the inshore limit—they are benetitted by being enabled to 
purchase bait as before mentioned and are enabled to take larger quan- 
tities of fish than they could do if fishing alone by reason of the fish 
being attracted by the quantities of bait thrown from the United States 
fishing vessels. 

7th The cost of fishing vessels and of outfits therefor in the British 
Provinces is at least twenty five per cent lower than the cost thereof in 
the United States and as a consequence of this difference in prices a 
large number of United States fishing vessels procure their outfits-in the 
British Provinces yearly. 

8th The United States fishermen procure the herring which is almost 
the only bait which they use for the deep sea codfishery by purchase 
from Colonial fishermen—they make such purchases in large quantities 
buying all or nearly all the bait they need for that fishery from Colonial 
fishermen and they buy in addition from the inhabitants along the 
coasts of the British Provinces large quantities of ice salt barrels pro- 


_ Visions nets twines cables clothing and all otber articles used in the 


Ree 


prosecution of the fisheries. This is the principal trade of some of the 
ports of Nova Scotia and is a great benefit to the inhabitants. Large 
quantities of fresh fish are also purchased by Americans in some parts 
of the British Provinces for shipment to the United States and such 
Shipments are chiefly made in Colonial vessels. 


3280 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


9th Of late years the drying and curing of fish by United States fish- 
ermen is principally done'on the decks of their vessels and they seldom 
land to dry nets or to cure fish or to repack them or to trans-ship cargoes, 

10th The Treaty of Washington so far as the privileges of the fish- 
ermen are concerned is J verily believe as beneficial to the people of the 
British Provinces as to the people of the United States. 

11th The United States afford the only market for all number one and 
number two mackerel for all fat herring not consumed at home and for 
all number one salmon from the British Provinces and the duties paid 
on the exportation of such fish from the British Provinces before the 
Treaty of Washington amounted to a very large sum of money annually. | 
The provisions of the Treaty of Washington by which said market is 
made free are a very great benefit to the people of the British Provinces. 

12th For several years past the inshore fisheries of the British Prov- 
inces have not been so much resorted to by United States fishermen as 
they were formerly and they are being less and less resorted to every 
year by such fishermen. The change in the mode of fishing pursued by 
such fishermen is one reason for this circumstance and another reason 
is that the mackerel fishery on the coasts of British North America has 
for several years past been declining while it has been improving during 
the same period on the coasts of the United States. The fisheries on 
the coasts of the United States would be as valuable to Colonial fisher- 
men as to the United States fishermen if the former chose to avail them- 
selves of the concessions of the Treaty of Washington in that particular. 

13th In this affidavit the statements which I have made in the present 
tense apply to the state of things existing for the last six or seven years 
except where I have expressed a different meaning. 


r his 
JOHN + GLAZEBROOK 


mark 


Sworn to before me at Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia this 
20th day of June A D 1877 being first read and explained to deponent. 
(Seal.) WM McKERRON 
Notary Public. 
No. 207. 


I William Hays of Halifax in the County Halifax fisherman being | 
solemnly sworn do make oath and say as follows: 

Ist I say that for forty years last past I have been engaged in the fish- | 
eries of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and | 
have been for that time intimately acquainted with the condition of the | 
said fisheries and the manner in which fishing has been carried on by | 
the Colonial and United States fishermen. 

2nd The same kinds and descriptions of fish that are found on the 
coasts and shores of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are to be | 
found on the coasts and shores of the United States which are now made | 
available to Colonial fishermen by the Treaty of Washington, and on | 
the coasts and shores of the United States several descriptions of fish | 
are procured which cannot be found on the coasts and shores of Nova | 
See and Prince Edward Island, namely, Bass, porgies, and other 
cinds, . 

3rd The greater part of the bait used by Colonial fishermen in the 
mackeral fishery is aud must be procured from the United States and 
is furnished to them by United States fishermen who come to the coasts 
of the Provinces under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, 
The best aud most commouly used bait for mackeral are porgies which =~ 


a | 


= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3281 


are all taken from the coasts of the United States and generally inshore, 
and the procuring of such bait in this way is a great benefit to the Colo- 
nial fishermen. 

4th Of the fisheries pursued by United States fishermen off the Atlan- 
tic coast of British North America much the larger proportion consists 
of the deep sea fisheries outside the three mile limit. I believe that at 
least three fourths if not five sixths of the fish taken by United States 
fishermen off the said coast last mentioned are taken outside the three 
mile limit, 

5th The United States fishermen pursue the inshore fisheries chiefly 
for mackeral and of the mackeral taken by such fishermen on the Coasts 
of British North America about one fourth is taken inside and about 
three fourths outside the three mile limit, taking the average of seasons. 
The United States fishermen do not fish in boats when in British North 
American waters but in vessels, the Colonial fishermen fish principally 
in boats, The United States fishermen procure the mackeral which 
they catch inshore principally around the shores of the Magdalen Isl- 
ands, around the shores of Prince Edward Island, the East coast of New 
Brunswick and the North coasts of Cape Breton. 

6th Colonial fishermen are not injured in the prosecution of the fish- 
eries but benefitted by the United States fishermen being allowed to fish 
within the inshore limits, the facility thus given for the purchase of bait 
is a great advantage to Colonial fishermen and in consequence of the 
large quantities of bait thrown from a fleet of United States fishing ves- 
sels the Colonial fishermen fishing in the vicinity of such a fleet are en- 
abled to take much larger quantities of fish than they could if fishing 
alone,— 

7th The cost of fishing vessels and of the outfits for the same in the 
British Provinces is at least twenty five per cent lower than the cost 
thereof in the United States and as a consequence of this difference in 
prices a large number of United States fishing vessels procure their out- 
fits in the British North American Provinces . 

8th The United States fishermen procure the bait which they use for 
the deep sea codfishery which bait consists of herring by purchasing the 
the same from Colonial fishermen, they purchase herring for such pur- 

’ pose in large quantities and in fact obtain all or nearly all they need in 

that way from Colonial fishermen and in addition to their purchases of 
bait the United States fishermen purchase from traders along the coasts 
of the British Provinces large quantities of ice, salt, barrels, provisions, 
nets, twines, clothing and all other articles used in the prosecution of 
the fisheries. The trade with the United States fishermen for such 
articles is of great benefit to the people of the British Provinces and is 
the principal trade of some of the ports of Nova Scotia, Large quan- 
tities of fresh fish are also purchased by Americans in some parts of the 
British Provinces for shipment to the United States and such shipments 
are mostly made in Colonial vessels. 

9th Of late years the drying and curing of fish by United States 
fishermen is principally done on the decks of their vessels and they sel- 
dom land to dry nets or to cure fish or to repack them or to traus-ship 
cargoes,— 

10th The Treaty of Washington so far as the priviliges of the fisheries 
are concerned is, I verily believe as beneficial to the people of the Brit- 
ish Provinces as to the people of the United States, both will be equally 
benefitted by such privileges being given. 

11th For all number one and number two mackeral for all fat herring 
not consumed at home and for all namber one Salmon from the British 


206 F 


3282 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Provinces the United States afford the only market and the duties paid on 
the exportation of such fish from the British Provinces before the Treaty 
of Washington amounted to a very large sum of money annually, and 
the opening of the United States Market by the Treaty of Washington 
to such exportation has been a very great benefit to the people of the 
British Provinces, 

12th For several years past the inshore fisheries of the British}Prov- 
inces have not been so much resorted to by United States fishermen a 
they were formerly and they are being less and less resorted to every 
year by such fishermen—one reason for this fact is the change in the 
modes of fishing pursued by such fishermen, Another is the fact that 
the mackerel fishery on the coasts of the British Provinces has for 
several years past been declining while it has been improving during 
the same period on the coasts of the United States 

13th The fisheries on the coast of the United States’would jbe as 
valuable to Colonial fishermen as to the United States fishermenjif the 
Colonial fishermen chose to avail themselves of the concessions of the 
Washington Treaty in that particular and latterly they are beginning 
to avail themselves of that fishery which is annuaily becoming more 
valuable. 

14th In this affidavit the statements which I have made in the present 
tense apply to the state of things which has existed for the past six 
years except where I have expressed a different meaning. 

WILLIAM HAYES 


Sworn to before me at Halifax in the County of Halifax in the Prov- 
ince of Nova Scotia this 13th day of June A D 1877 
WM McKERRON 
(Seal.) Notary Public 


No. 208. 


The Examination of Captain William A. Molloy of Great St. Lawrence 
Newfoundland taken before George Henry Emerson Attorney at Law. 
Examiner 


The said witness being sworn saith—I am a native of Newfoundland 
and am 27 years of age. I have been engaged in the Fishery-business 
all my life. There is very little inshore-fishing done by American Fish- 
erman within three miles of the Coast of Newfoundland except bait- 
taking. There is no mackerel-fishing done on the Coast of Newfound- 
land by either American or British fisherman. There is no boat-fishing 
done on the inshore by American fisherman I was eight years fishing 
out of Gloucester six years of which I was Master—I am therefore per- 
fectly acquainted with the American fishing in the Maratime Provinces. 
I have never known the American Fisherman avail themselves of the 
privilege of landing to dry nets, cure fish or use the shore for any other 
purpose in this Colony except for obtaining Water The fisherman of 
Newfoundland benefit very materially by intercourse with American 
fisherman both by traffic in bait, ice and fishing-stores and the selling 
by American-fisherman within the Colony, of their small-fish and oil. 
I think that the importance of the intercourse of American fisherman 
with British fisherman cannot at present be estimated. Every Ameri- 
can Fishing vessel that comes to Newfoundland cannot get out under 
an outlay of from sixty to seventy dollars for bait and ice. The British 
fisheries for the past few years have been less productive and remunera- 
tive to those engaged in them, than formerly. Thefshore jfisheries on 


| 


AWARD OF ‘THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3283 


the inshore have been of very little value to those prosecuting them 
either from the States or Newfoundland for the past four years. The 
fishing by American fisherman in the Waters of the Provinces does not 
lessen the catch of American or British fisherman; and the presence 
of American Fishermen in the Provincial Waters improves the Status 
of the Provincial fisherman, who are much inferior to the American 
fisherman, and are at least a century behind the age in the manner of 
catching fish. If the British fishermen employed as much capital and 
had as much energy and enterprise as the American Fisherman [ believe 
that the American Fishermen cannot compete on the Newfoundland 
coast in catching fish. The only advantage derived by American Fish- 
erman from the Treaty of Washington 1871, is the advantage of catch- 
ing bait and obtaining ice which is also of great advantage to New- 
foundlanders in the way of Traffic. 
WILLIAM MOLLOY 


Taken before me at Saint Johns Newfoundland this lst day of June 


AD 1877 
GEO H.Y EMERSON Jr 
Examiner— 
No. 209. 


The examination of Levi Griffin of Boston United States of America but at 
present of Saint John’s Newfoundland taken before me George Henry 
Emerson Jr Examiner— 


This Witness being sworn, saith :— 

I am a native of the State of Maine but at present am fishing in New- 
foundland Iam thirty four years of age, and have been engaged in the 
fishery-business about twenty years. The American fisherman do not 
use and have never used the inshore fisheries for cod fishing. There is 
no mackerel fishing on the Coast of Newfoundland. There is no boat- 
fishing done by Americans on the Coast of Newfoundland Even the - 
Bank fishing has become less lucrative and important within the past 
ten years than it formerly was. To my knowledge there has been no 
use made by the Americans of the privilege of landing on the Coast of 
Newfoundland for curing the fish, drying the nets, obtaining their 
wood. ‘There is no object whatever to be obtained by such landing. 
American fisherman generally purchase whatever they require from the 
people of the Island. The value to all provincial fisherman especially 
to Newfoundlanders cannot be too highly estimated (and will no doubt 
be of greater value in the future) of their intercourse with Americans. 
Every Fishing vessel that enters the ports of Newfoundland, belonging 
to Americans leaves at least Eighty dollars. Nearly all the American 
fisherman purchase ice, bait and stores and supplies in large quantities 
in Newfoundland and this trade is increasing very largely every year. 
I have repeatedly heard the fisherman of Newfoundland assert that it 
was a great benefit to them to have constant intercourse with Americans 
Thousands of Barrels of bait would pass the shores of Newfoundland 
every year if the Americans did not come down to purchase them. This 
trade with the fisherman of Newfoundland for bait and ice is of great 
benefit to the Island and generally recognized to be so except by the 
large Merchants of the Island. A great impetus has been given to the 
fishing-business in Newfoundland since the passing of the Washington 
Treaty 1871. The trade of Americans with Newfoundlanders has in- 
creased at least One hundred per. cent. per annum, since the passing of 
the Treaty and is steadily increasing with great advantage to all con- 


+ 
ba 
- ; 


3284 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


cerned. It is the real opinion of the Inhabitants of the Maratime Prov. - 
inces especially Newfoundland that the incidental advantages to be 
derived from the presence of American fisherman in British Waters is is 
of great value to British Fisherman is very great, and that the fisheries 
on the Coast of Newfoundland do not suffer to any extent. and does not 
lessen in any way the catch of British fisherman. If the British fisher- 
man employed as much capital and had as much energy and enterprise 
as American fisherman the American Waters would be of more impor- 
tance to Newfoundlanders than the British Waters are to Americans 
especially as there are no mackerel to be caught on the Newfoundland 
coast 
» The fishing-business as a rule does not make very large returns com- | 
pared with other businesses, considering the Amount of Capital and 
time employed in its prosecution. It is a very precarious means of liv- 
ing—and the _‘fisherman’s luck” is almost as proverbial as the *“* Miners 
luck.” 

LEVI GRIFFIN | 


Taken before.me at Saint John’s this 2nd day of July A D 1877 
GEO. H.Y EMERSON Jr 
Examiner— 


No. 210. 


The examination of Henry A. Cobb a native Province Town Massa: but 
at present of Saint John’s Newfoundland taken before me George Henry 
Emerson, Examiner. 


This witness being sworn saith: My nameis Henry A. Cobb. Iam 26 
years of age and have been engaged in the cod and other fisheries all my 
life. I have been fishing on the Grand Bank for a period of ten years. 
It is not true that American Fishermen use the- inshore fishery within 
’ three miles for cod-fishing. There are no mackerel on the Coast of 
Newfoundland. There is not any boat-fishing done by American fisher- 
men on the inshore fisheries except bait-taking, which is seldom done, 
as American Fishermen are rarely equipped for bait-catching of any kind, 
and are consequently driven to purchase from the Newfoundland. The 
inshore fishing is of no value to American fisherman and has to my 
knowledge been of very little value to British-fishermeu for the past 
ten years I have never known, in all my experience, extending over | 
ten years of American fisherman availing themselves of the privilege | 


a 


of landing on the Coast of Newfoundland to dry nets, -cure fish or for 
any other purpose. Since the Treaty of Washington the number of | © 
American fishing-vessels has not increased on the coast of Newfound- | 
land and the only advantage derived by American fisherman is the 
privilege of obtaining fresh-bait from Newfoundland fishermen. The 
advantage derived from intercourse with American fisherman, is very 
great to Newfoundlanders. American fishing vessels call at the differ- | 
ent ports on the South East and West of Newfoundland and buy bait, | 
ice, and fishing stores to large amounts and sell their small-fish and oil. | 
Every fishing vessel entering a Newfoundland port expends at least | 
Seventy five dollars every trip before she leaves. This is of great ad-_ 
vantage to the Newfoundland people especially in the outports where | 
the fisherman is generally very poor and very destitute. It is true that 
the British fisheries are much less productive and less valuable than 
they formerly were and the inshore fishery’s on the coast.of Newfound- — 
land has been reduced about fifty per cent. in quantity and value within | 


, a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3285 


the past ten years. It is the opinion of most maritime provincial fish- 
ermen that the incidental advantages derived by them from intercourse 
with American fishermen are very great; and that the presence of 
American fisherman in British Waters is not detrimental to the interests 
of British fishermen, either by depreciating the value of the fish by 
competition, or decreasing the Catch of fish in the provinces. If the 
British fishermen were more energetic and put more capital into their 
fisheries and had the same class of vessels prosecuting the fishery that 
the Americans have, the Mackerel fishing of the United States would 
be of inestimable value to them as they have no mackerel fishing in 
Newfoundland. 

I do not think there has been any advantage obtained by American 
fishermen by the Treaty of Washington except taking bait. The only 
Mackerel fishing that the Americans prosecuted in British Waters 
before the passing of the Treaty was at Bay Chaleur, and that has 
failed from natural causes. 

HENRY A COBB. 


Taken before me at Saint Johns Newfoundland this 2nd day of June 


A D 1877. 
GEO, H.Y EMERSON Jr 
Examiner 


No. 211. 


The evamination of Cyrenius Brown of Trepassey in the Island of Newfound 
land (formerly of the State of Maine U. 8.) taken before me at Saint 
John’s Newfoundland, 


This Witness being sworn saith:— 

I am a native of Bucksport in the State of Maine United States of 
America but at present residing in Trepassey in the Island of Newfound. 
land. Iam sixty nine years of age. I have been engaged in the Fishery 
business about forty years. It is not true that American fisherman use 
the inshore fisheries within three miles of the Coast of Newfoundland 
for cod or.other fishing. American fisherman fish either on the Grand 
Bank, St. Peters Bank or Banquero. There is no mackerel on the Coast 
of Newfoundland. The inshore fishery is of little or no value to Amer- 
ican fisherman. It is never prosecuted by American fishermen. I never 
knew American fishermen to land on the coast of Newfoundland for the 
purpose of drying their nets curing their fish. This privilege is never 
availed of by American fishermen because they bring their fish to the 
States in a “‘Sreen” condition, which is more profitable than drying and 
curing in Newfoundland, where the weather is much less suited for the 
cure of fish than the climate of the United States. 

I think the value of American “ Bankers” visiting Newfoundland is 
of great value to Newfoundlands. The American “ Bankers” purchase 
large quantities of Bait and ice in Newfoundland. This practice of vis- 
iting Newfoundland for the purpose of obtaining Bait, which was hardly 
known ten years ago, is increasing rapidly and will be of more value to 
Newfoundlanders in the future. This practice increases about twenty 
per. cent, every year. Each American “ Banker” spends about sixty to 
Seventy dollars for Bait on her visit to Newfoundland. This Traffic is 
of great value to Newfoundland. and the people of the country think it 
a great blessing to be able to sell the Bait to the Americans, which would 
otherwise be useless and unprofitable to any one. Newfoundlanders 
generally acknowledge that they receive a great deal more by free inter- 


3286 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


course with Americans in their fishery business than they do with either 
Canadian or Nova Scotian fisherman. 
CYRENIUS BROWN 


Taken before me at Saint Johns Newfoundland this 2nd day of July 


1877. 
_ GEO. H.Y EMERSON Jr 
Examiner 
INO 212: 


The Examination of William Fitzgerald of St John’s Newfoundland taken 
before me George Henry Emerson Examiner. 


This witness being sworn saith :—I am thirty nine years of age. I 
have been engaged in the Fishery-business over twenty years. I have 
been fishing out of the Port of Gloucester, United States, for the past 
ten years. I am well acquainted with the American fishing on the 


Coast of Newfoundland The Americans never did not do they now - 


use the inshore-fishery within three miles for the purposes of cod or any 
other fishing except the taking of bait There is not any mackerel fish- 
ing on the coast of Newfoundland by either American of British Fisher- 
men. There is no boat fishing by the Americans on the Coast of New- 
foundland at all. American fishermen do not come prepared for inshore 
fishing. Inshore fishing would not be profitable to Americans as the 
inshore fish would not find a market in the United States owing to the 
smallness of the fish. Americans do not make use in any way of the 
privilege granted under the Treaty of Washington of landing on the 
coast of Newfoundland to cure fish, dry nets or procure wood and water. 
Americans buy their wood and water from the Newfoundlanders. The 
only advantage derived by Americans under the Above Treaty is the 
privilege of procuring fresh-bait and ice which they always, with few 
exceptions, purchase in the different ports of Newfoundland. I think 
that the presence of American fishermen in the ports of Newfoundland 
purchasing stores bait ice &c is of great advantage to the people of the 
Colony and is of great value to the fishermen of the provinces in the 
way of increased traflic and will be of more importance to the people in 
the future. I paid last year fifty cents per hundred to Newfoundlanders 
for Squids for bait and I purchased about 15,000 at that price. I con- 
sider that number of Squids small for a vessel to take. I-have paid as 
high as ninety cents per hundred for squids on the Western Coast of 
Newfoundland. 

I think great advantages will be obtained by Newfoundland in the 
future by the intercourse of American fishermen with Newfoundland 
fishermen, quite as much as the benefits derived by American fishermen 
by privileges granted under the Washington Treaty. The Mutual inter- 
course will improve the habits and customs of the Newfoundland fisher- 
men especially in the manner of taking and curing fish and also in giv- 
ing labour to Newfoundland fishermen ; which they are not at all times 
able to obtain. Half the population of Newfoundland are thrown out 
of employment when the inshoré fishery fails. 


his 
WILLIAM + FITZGERALD 


mark 


Taken before me at Saint Johns this 5th day of June A D 1877 
GEO H. Y EMERSON JR 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3287 
No. 213. 


I, Charles H Nute Master of Sch Edward E. Webster of Gloucester 
and formerly Master of Sch’s Ben Perley Poore, Lightfoot, Ontario & 
Cc. B. Manning—all of Gloucester, was born in Gloucester, am 32 years 
of age & have been engaged in the fisheries for 20 years & continuously 
engaged in the Grand Bank fishery for the past twelve (12) years taking 
Cod & Halibut for the first nine years obtained my bait upon the Banks 
—usually carrying from home a few barrels of Pogie Slivers to procure 
the first fish & afterwards fishes-peas & other refuse parts of fish, also 
useing Bird-meat,—a large quantity being obtained by catching the 
Hagdon with a-hook—for the last three years I have bought my bait of 
the inhabitants of Newfoundland paying cash for the same. the holding 
of bait by traps and pounds by the people of N. F. enables us to obtain 
our bait readily & is a source of income to them and convenience to us 
—the people will often chase us for miles for an opportunity to bait an 
American fisherman,—we meet their boats off St. Peters seeking for 
American vessels to sell them bait,—there being a very active competi- 
tion in selling bait and supplies the Newfoundlanders carry this bait to 
St Peters to sell to the French vessels & we could easily procure this 

. bait there, as there are thousands of barrels annually thrown overboard 
for want of a market & the only object in going to Newfoundland is to 
obtain the bait in its freshest state—I never have caught any bait at N. 
F. but have purchased it when I have got any at N. F.—I have never 
known any American vessel to catch bait at Newfoundland having uni- 
formly purchased the same. 

I paid on this last voyage, ending Aug 10. 1877, $271 to the inhabit- 
ants of N. F. for bait 

I know that this trade is of great advantage to the inhabitants of 
Newfoundland, as our vessels leave from one to two thousand dollars 
some days, in some of the little Coves of the Coast—the Squid are 
entirely useless except for the purposes of bait, and the American and 
French fleet provide the only market—there is about 250 American ves- 
‘sels engaged in the Bank fishery—a portion—say one half—purchase 
bait at Newfoundland I have never caught any Halibut or Cod within 
one hundred & fifty miles of the British shores the american Cod & 
Halibut fishery being entirely a deep-sea or ocean fishery and I knew of 
no American vessels taking Cod or Halibut within three miles of the 
shore—there is no American vessel engaged in the Codfishery that car- 


ries seines or nets to procure bait 
CHARLES H NUTE 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX SS. August 13th 1877 


Then personally appeared the above named Charles H. Nute and made 
oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true to the 
best of his knowledge & belief before me 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 

Notary Public 


I, Joseph Oakley, Master of the Schooner Sarah P. Ayer of Glouces- 
ter do depose and say that I was born in Nova Scotia, am 29 years of 
age, have been continuously engaged in the fisheries—the last eight 
years of which being out of Gloucester & always to the Grand Banks. 


3288 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I have read the statement of Captain Charles H. Nute of Sch Edward 
R. Webster, and in all its features and statements it accords with my 
own experience & is perfectly true—on my last trip to Grand Bank I 
took my bait at Newfoundland and paid $209,76 cash for the same— 
have never caught fish or halibut while in an American vessel within 3 
miles of the shore—the American Cod & halibut fishery is entirely a 
deep-sea or ocean fishery. I consider the bait business of Newfound- 
land of vastly more profit to the inhabitants than convenience or profit 
to the Americans and I believe that were it not for this trade of bait & 
supplies to the American fleet; the inhabitants would suffer great dis- 
tress & poverty. as their stock in trade would be entirely useless, were 
it not for our fleet to purchase them, 
. JOSEPH OAKLEY 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX 8s. : GLOUCESTER Aug. 13th 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named Joseph Oakley and made 
oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true to the 
best of his knowledge and belief before me 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 

Notary Public 


No. 215. 


I, Mathew McDonald Master of the Sch Clara B. Chapman, and sub- 
sequently of the Sch Webster Sanborn was born in Prince Edward 
Island am twenty six years of age, have been engaged in the fisheries 
from Gloucester for the past eight years — principally on the Grand 
Banks, taking Codfish & halibut. I have used for bait principally her- 
ring & squid in all cases purchasing the same of the inhabitants of New- 
foundland & paying Cash for the same at the rate of $3. per Bbl. for 
Herring and 50 Cts per 100 for Squid — the people there being anxious 
to sell the same to the American fishermen — I have never attempted ° 
to catch any bait on the Coast of N. F. — am well acquainted with the 
manner in which bait is obtained by the American fishermen & I know 
that all with which Iam acquainted buy their bait — paying cash for 
the same, — have never known of but one case in which the bait was caught 
— one vessel taking a few Bbls of Squid at Conception Bay, N. F. I 
have never fished for, Cod or Halibut on the British shores, nor do I 
know of any American vessel ever taking these fish within the limit of 
three miles from the shore, the Cod & Halibut fisheries, as prosecuted 
by the American fishermen, is entirely a deep-sea fishery. 

MATHEW McDONALD 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETS 
COUNTY OF EssEx \ ss. 
GLOUCESTER Aug 13th 1877. 
Then personally appeared the within named Mathew McDonald, Mas- 
ter of Sch. Clara B. Chapman, and made oath that the within statement 
by him subscribed is true 


Before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3289 
No. 216. 


The Examination of Patrick Walsh of St. John’s Newfoundland taken 
before me George Henry Emerson jr Examiner— 


This witness being sworn saith— 


Iam forty three years of age and have been engaged in the Fishery 
since I was fourteen years old. I am Master of a Newfoundland Steam 
Bait Skiff, a vessel belonging to the’ Honorable Ambrose Shea of St 
John’s Newfoundland, and used by him for procuring bait for the Fish- 
ermen of Newfoundland. 

~I never knew the American fishermen use the inshore shore fishery 
for Cod or other fishing. We have no mackerel on the Coast of this 
Island. The American fisherman frequent our Harbors for the purpose 
of procuring bait to prosecute the fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland. 
They purchase always and do not catch it themselves. The fishermen 
of Newfoundland benefit by this traffic with the American fishermen in 
bait and ice. The Newfoundland fishermen can procure plenty of bait 
when it is impossible to catch fish, which bait the Americans purchase 
from him at the rate of 40 to 50 cents per hundred. This is of inestima- 
ble value to Newfoundlanders as the inshore fishery on this Coast for 
the past ten years has been very unproductive while there has been a 
great quantity of bait, which if it were not for the purchase by the 
American fishermen would be perfectly useless to any one. 


his 
PATRICK x WALSH. 


mark. 


aren before me at Saint Johns Newfoundland this 4th day of June 
A D 1877 
GEO. H. Y EMERSON Jr 
No. 217. 


Examination of Captain James Brown of Boston, Mass: at present of 
~ Saint John’s taken before me George Henry Emerson, Examiner. 


This witness being sworn saith :— 

I am thirty two years of age and have been engaged in the Bank 
fishery on the Coast of Newfoundland for the past fifteen years. The 
American fisherman do not use the inshore fisheries within three miles 
of the Coast of Newfoundland for either Cod or other fishing, except 
for taking bait. American fishermen always buy their bait on the coast 
of Newfoundland from the Newfoundland fishermen. The is no mack- 
erel fishing on the Coast of Newfoundland. There is no boat-fishing 

y the Americans on the Coast of Newfoundland. I have never known 

American fishermen land on the Coast of Newfoundland to dry nets, 
ire fish or for any other purpose. ‘There is no necessity of American 
ishermen landing in Newfoundland except for the purpose of purchasing 
it, Ice, and fishing stores. American fishermen always purchase bait, 
ey never catch their own bait. The Americans never come prepared, 
and find it cheaper to purchase bait, than to bring nets and gear from 
the States, to catch it with, An American fishing vessel would want 
about fifty barrels of Herring for bait, or about twenty thousand squids. 
Herring average about forty dollars for fifty barrels of Herring, and 
about forty cents per Hundred for squids —I think that the traffic 
between the American fisherman and the Newfoundland fisherman is of 


3290 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


great importance to the Newfoundlander, in putting into circulation 
among the people of the Western Coast a great deal of money and the 
facility of obtaining by the Newfoundlander from the Americans pro- 
visions at a cheaper rate than can be obtained from the Newfoundland 
Merchant, whose prices are exceedingly high. The intercourse of 
American and Newfoundland fisherman is also of great importance in 
improving the manners and habits of the Newfoundlander especially in 
the manner of catching fish and in improving generally the status of 
the Newfoundland fisherman who is at least half a centuary behind the 
age even in obtaining and curing fish which is his only means of sup- 
port. I think the American fishermen leave about sixty thousand dol- 
lars a years in Newfoundland and all this money is spent among the 
fishermen and not among the merchants. This must be of inestimable 
value to the people of Newfoundland who are a very people and have 
very little money among them — JAMES BROWN 


Taken before me at Saint Johns aforesaid this 4th day of June A D 


Li — 
GEO. H. Y EMERSON Jer 
Examiner 
No. 218. 


I. John H. McKinnon a native of Cape Breton N.S. aged 28 years 
Master of Schooner Rutherford B. Hayes of Gloucester, Mass. on 
oath deposes and says that in 1875 he was Master of Schooner Mary 
Low of Gloucester Mass. and was engaged in the Grand Bank Fishing 
for Cod and Halibut, catching them with Trawls baited mostly with 
Herring purchased in Hermitage Bay Newfoundland, that I have never 
caught any bait myself but they the Newfoundlanders have asked my 
Crew to help them catch the bait, but I did not get it any cheaper on 
that account. My experience has been that no American Vessel has 
caught their own bait but occasionally as a favor or to get their bait 
quicker have aided the Newfoundland fishermen in catching it. paying 
in full for it. American fishermen do not carry Nets or anything to take 
bait with, except a few Squid jigs—I never took any Codfish or Halibut 
within three miles of the coast of Newfoundland or British Provinces 
while I have been in an American Vessel. and do not believe an Ameri- 
can Vessel does it, except to get a fresh fish to eat. All their Cod & 
Halibut Fisheries are deep Sea fisheries. I have purchased Ice in New- 
foundland for which nearly double was paid for it more than Ice sold for 
in Gloucester. All the supplies wanted for Vessel nse is a great deal 
higher in Newfoundland and the Inhabitants are making money from 
their trade with American Vessels—In selling to American Vessels I 
consider it is worth much more to them than the privilege of buying is, 
to us, as the markets of the French Islands are open to us. and the bait 
would seek that Market were the Ports of Newfoundland closed to 
American Fishermen, and I think it is made a market tor their bait 
now, to considerable extent. 

I have been engaged in the Cod & Halibut fisheries for the past five 
years having been four years Skipper or Master. 

JOHN McKINNON 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Ss 
COUNTY OF ESSEX 


GLOUCESTER Aug. 13th, 1877 


Then personally appeared the above named John McKinnon and sub- 
scribed and made oath that the foregoing statement is true. Before ae 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW Notary Public 


q 


oe ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3291 
No. 219. 


I. John Curzon a native of Pictou Nova Scotia. Master of Schooner 
Mist of Gloucester Massachusetts Aged 35 years on oath depose and say 
that I have been engaged in the fishing business, nine years, Cod & 
Halibut Fishing wholly, with exception of one trip after Mackerel, have 
fished on Grand Bank. and Georges Banks. In fishing on the Grand 
Banks I have bought my bait. paying cash have procured them in For- 
tune, Tar and Conception Bays in Newfoundland, paying from 20c to 
75c per hundred for Squid and from $25 to $30 for baiting our Schooner 
for the voyage. I have purehased Ship Stores and Ice in Newfoundland 
always paying more than I could have bought for at home, they asking 
the highest prices for everything—I have never carried Nets or anything 
to catch bait and know of no vessel (American) that has. the trade with 
American vessels has been for three or four years past and they make 
money out of it I do not know what they would do without us for their 
Squid would be worthless without our trade. and their Herring would 
be almost wortless to them except what few they could sell at the French 
Islands. If prevented from purchasing bait and supplies in Newfoun@- 
land, American fishermen could go to the French Islands and get plenty, 
and their other supplies much cheaper. 

That I consider that their chance to sell to American Fishermen is 
worth a great deal more to them than our privilege to go there and pur- 
chase. for dozzens are running after you to sell bait and if they think 
you want supplies and ice the Merchants or Traders solicit your trade. 

- JOHN CURZON 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX Ss. GLOUCESTER Aug 13th 1877 


Then personally appeared John Curzon, above named, and made oath 
that all the above statements by him subscribed are true. before me 
DAVID W. LOW 
(Seal.) Notary Public 
No. 220. 


I, John G. Dennis of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts, being duly sworn do depose and say that 
Iam forty years old, and have been engaged in the fishing business 
both as fishermen and in sending out vessels. for the last fifteen years 
Iam now a member of the firm of Dennis and Ayer. I send on an ave- 
rage two vessels each winter to Fortune Bay Newfoundland for herring— 
Herring are purchased from the inhabitants of Newfoundland and are 
never caught by the Americans—The vessels that go to Newfoundland 
for herring are not prepared for fishing they purchase herring paying 
from one to two dollars per barrel partly in money and partly in goods, 
provisions, &c these vessels all make entry at the Custom-House and 
pay duties upon the goods with which they purchase the herring— 
American vessels leave from ($25000,00) twenty-five thousand dollars 
to ($40,000 00) forty thousand dollars Each year in the region of For- 
tune Bay—This is the only business the inhabitants of Fortune Bay 
have during the winter, and the only market for their herring and with- 
out it they would not be able to live—American vessels have never 
been ordered off or forbidden to purchase herring on the coast of New 
foundland— 

I am also engaged in the cod. fishery on the Grand Banks and my ves- 


3292 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


sels purchase bait on the Coast of Newfoundland herring is the bait 
principally used, my vessels bring some bait from the United States 
but when they are out of it they call at the various bays of Newfound- 
land and purchase it there, No objection has ever been made to pur- 
chasing bait and supples on the Newfoundland coast, the inhabitants 
are glad enough to sell it to us as it is a very profitable trade for them— 
The Newfoundland traders in bait and ice advertise in the Gloucester 
newspapers and send circulars to the various fishing firms asking their 
custom—Bait is also purchased at the French Islands from the New- 
foundland jacks which come there to sell the herring bait to the French 
and American fishing vessels—I consider the herring fishery of New- 
foundland of no value to Americans, they never catch but only purchase 
the fish and pay the full value for them—American vessels never fish 
for cod or any other fish within three miles of the Coast of Newfound- 
land. 
JOHN G. DENNIS 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX SS GLOUCESTER July 28th 1877 
Then personally appeared the above named John G. Dennis and 
made oath that all the foregoing statements by him subscribed were 
true to the best of his knowledge and belief 
before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


I Andrew Leighton of Gloucester in the county of Essex and Com- 


monwealth of Massachusetts being duly sworn do depose and say that - 


I am fifty-four years old, and have been engaged in the fishing business 
both as fishermen and dealer for over thirty years, I have been en- 
gaged in the Newfoundland herring trade for eighteen years, during the 
winter principally at Fortune Bay, The Method of doing business is to 
send vessels from here to purchase cargoes of frozen herring from the 
fishermen on that coast, which are then carried to the United States 
and there sold. I have never caught any herring on the coast of New- 
foundland and I have never known of any American vessel doing so. 
as it is much cheaper to buy them from the inhabitants who catch them 
in small boats, than to catch them ourselves—No objection has ever 
been made by the Government of Newfoundland to our purchasing her- 
ring there to my knowledge. the inhabitants are glad eneough to sell 
to us as they depend for their living entirely during the winter upon 
the trade with the American vessels— 
ANDREW LEIGHTON 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


ESSEX SS. GLOUCESTER July 1877 
Then personally appeared the abovenamed Andrew Leighton and 
made oath that all the foregoing statements by him subscribed are tre 
to the best of his knowledge and belief, before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8293 
No. 222. 


I Robert J. Reeves of Gloucester in the County of Essex and Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts, being duly sworn do depose and say that 
Iam thirty-nine years of age and am the Captain of the three-masted 
schooner William I Shepard of 475 tons burden, that I have been 
engaged in the Newfoundland herring trade for about eight years and 
‘during that time I made a voyage each winter to the coast of Newfound- 
land usually to Fortune Bay for the purpose of purchasing cargoes of 
frozen herrings of the inhabitants, that I have never fished for herring on 
that coast and have never known of any American vessels catching 
herring there. the usual course is for the American vessels to purchase 
their cargo from the fishermen paying them in gold from one to two 
dollars per barrel for the hering fresh, sometimes they pay for them in 

, provisions but at the same rate as in money—Our vessels are not far- 
nished for fishing' and do not carry nets, they enter regularly at the 
Custom-house and when they cary goods with which to purchase the 
herring, they pay the duties—It is much cheaper for us to purchase the 
herring from the Newfoundland fishermen than to catch them ourselves, 
the inhabitants of the country around Fortune Bay depend during the 
winter for their living entirely upon the trade with American vessels 
and without it they would soon starve ; the American vessels pay on an 
average each from six hundred to one thousand dollars for the herring— 
No objection has ever been made to the Americans purchasing herring, 
to my knowledge, the inhabitants are glad to have Americans come as 
it is the only market they have for their herring during the winter— 

ROBERT J. REEVES 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX SS GLOUCESTER July 1877 


Then personally appeared the abovenamed Robert J. Reeves and 
made oath that—all the foregoing facts were true to the best of his 
knowledge and belief before me— 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 

Notary Public 


GLOUCESTER, Aug 18, 1877 


I Wm H Kirby was born in Reddington, Berkshire, England, and am 
. 837 years of age and on oath do depose and say that I have been engaged 
in the American Fisheries 19 years I have been Master of the Schooners 
Eliza K Parker, B D Haskins Amos, Cutter, Ocean Lodge Right Bower, 
Chas A Ropes Cornelius Stokem, of Gloucester & Salem State of Mass. 
I have been engaged in the Bank Fisheries for Cod & Halibut & Gulf 
of St Lawrence for Mackerel & Newfoundland and Magdelen Island 
Herring fishery. The American Cod & Halibut fishery is entirely a deep 
sea fishery I always carried Clams and Porgie slivers and obtained the 
test of my bait on the Banks viz (fishes peas & squid) I never took any 
Codfish or Halibut within three miles of the shore and none within 30 
miles of land I went fifteen seasons in the Gulf of St Lawrence, occupy- 
ing about 5 months each season My highest stock from the Gulf of St 
Lawrence was $ 6,400,00 and my lowest $2300,00 
An American vessel manned and equipped for a season of five months 


3294 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


in the Gulf of St Lawrence must stock at least $6,000,00 to pay her bills. 
Very few vessels have paid their bills for the last 4 years in the Bay 
I earried no Seine but depended upon the hook & line I did not catch 
one fifth of my Mackerel within three miles. A purse seine as now used 
cannot well be used inshore I dressed most of my Mackerel outside, 
whenever we dress inshore the fishing boats from shore come off for the 
Mackerel Gills and offal to bait their trawls with. Most of the shore 
boats use trawls for fish. The Nova Scotia North Cape fishermen, that 
is Schooners, get all the Mackerel offal they can to bait their trawls. 
This bait is the best for Cod fishing Mackerel fit for the Market are 
worth too much to use for bait for Cod fish to any extent 

I have been Ten Winters to Newfoundland for Herring. I carried 
nets only one voyage and that was last winter. I set my nets two nights 
the second night they were stolen. I had ever before bought my Her- 
ring from the Newfoundland fishermen, paying at the rate of one Dollar 
per Bbl in gold When I first went to Newfoundland the Inhabitants 
were very poor hardly owning a boat or net. They had no market for 
their Herring years ago except the Nova Scotia fishermen but upon the 
advent of the Americans fleet the prices rose from 3 shillings up to Ten 
Shilling per Barrel. The Merchants on the west side of Newfoundland 
send vessels to Fortune Bay for Herring and once had them at their own 
price. Now the American fishermen having raised the price paid to the 
poor operative the British traders cannot have them at their own price 
and pay for them in trade consequently they the traders are jealous 
of the Americans and would do anything to keep them away. The Amer- 
icans have absolutely raised up this population of poor operative fisher- 
men from poverty and made them independent in their business and of 
the grinding and debasing influence of the trading capitalist, if the fish- 
ermen were in the hands of the traders they would keep them at the 
Codfishery entirely and make them dependent on the traders. but now 
the fishermen can supply the American fleet with Herring and be inde- 
pendent and prosperous, there has long been this state of feeling there 
and it has culminated in various acts of violence Many of the operative 
fishermen now have good houses and own boats and nets where formerly 
they had neither, except a log hut, and all this is derived from the trade 
with Americans. 

The Magdalen Island fishery for Herring is carried on in the following 
manner. The American vessels do not go prepared to catch Herring. 
They go from Gloucester with 3 or 4 men and at Canso hire a Seine & 
Boats and men enough to handle it They pay for use of Seine 100 Dol- 
lars for a boat & man 40 Dollars for the trip generally hire 3 boats to 


each vessel and about six men The English fishermen haul the seine , 


on shore with the Herring and the Americans, hire the herring brought 
of in boats by the people of the Island and in case of packing hire women 
to dress and pack, The whole operative portion of the voyage being 
done by the inhabitants and they being paid for it. It is the general 
and universal custom to pack them on the vessel as there are no wharves 
and it would be very unhandy to do the work on the beach I never 
knew of Americans being denied the right to seine Herring at the Mag- 
dalen Islands I have never paid any Port Charges at these Islands or 
Customs duties 

At Fortune Bay Newfoundland they make us pay duties on Barrels 
and salt whether they are landed or not. 

W. H. KIRBY 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3295 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


CoUNTY OF ESSEX Ss. GLOUCESTER Aug. 18th 1877 


Then personally appeared the above named William H. Kirby and 
made oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true, 
to the best of his knowledge and belief before me 

(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 

Notary Public 


No. 224. 


GLOUCESTER Aug 17, 1877 


I, Byron Hines do depose and say that I was born in Pubnico, N, 8, 
and am 40 years of age am now mastee of the Sch Grand Mastee of 
Pubnico N, 8, am now engaged in fishing on the Grand Banks and 
delivering my fish at Gloucester Mass, have been engaged continously 
in the Bank fishery mostly, for the past 25 years am thoroughly ac- 
quainted with the manner of obtaining bait at Newfoundland & Nova 
Scotia my experience has been that all vessels American English and 
French have bought their bait and paid for it in Cash—a large part of 
the fishing business of New Foundland is engaged in supplying this bait 
and is very profitable to those engaged in it, more so than any other 
fishery pursued by them—the American fleet have not taken bait only 
within the last three years at Newfoundland—I have never caught any 
bait there neither have I ever known any American vessel to catch 
bait at Newfoundland—there are 50 vessels of from 25 to 40 tons each 
constantly carrying bait from Newfoundland to the French Islands (St 
Perre & Mequelon) and the American fleet buy their bait largely at 
these places We pay more for the bait, as such, than in other form in 
which it can be used, and other supplies in the sameratio. I have paid 
$3, per Bbl for sound Herring this spring at N, F, if we could not obtain 
this bait we could supply its place with porgies & clam, & I think to 
our advantage—the Newfoundland vessels board American vessels miles 
from the Coast for the purpose of obtaining their trade and whole com- 
mimties have been built up and are in a prosperous condition wholly by 
this trade,—in going in to these places for bait the vessel will often lose 
a fortnights time—with my experience as a Bank fisherman I should 
Say that it would be better to go without this bait, if all would do so— 
the American Cod and heelibut fishery is wholly a Bank or deep sea 
fishery and not a shore fishery in any sense 

BYRON HINES 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX Ss. GLOUCESTER Aug 17th 1877 
Then personally appeared the above named Byron Hines and made 
oath that all‘ the above statements by him subscribed are true, to the 
best of his knowledge & belief—before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
Notary Public 


No. 225. 


I William Greenleaf, Master of the Sch Chester R. Lawrence of Glou- 
cester, & formerly master of Schr’s John S Presson, F. W. Homans, Polar 
Wave, & Phoenix of said Gloucestee, born at Westport, Me. am 29 years 
of age do depose & say that I have been engaged in the fisheries tor the 


3296 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


past 18 years & master for the past 10 years. have been continously inthe — 


Grand Bank fishery for the last eight years. I have read the statement 
of Capt C. H. Nute* of Sch Edward R. Webster and according to my 
experience is true in every respect—the last voyage I made to Newfound- 
land I paid $286, for bait the practice of buying bait at Newfoundland has 
only existed about three years—the inhabetants afording every facility 
and anxious for the trade,—& have never known any American vessel to 
eatch Cod or Halibut within three miles of the shore. 
WILLIAM GREENLEAF 
(* See page 221.) 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX SS. GLOUCESTER Aug 13th 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named William Greenleaf and 
made oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true to 
the best of his knowledge and belief, before me 

(Seal.) DAVED W.. LOW 

Notary Public 
No. 226. 


GLOUCESTER Aug 18 1877 


I Harvey C Knowlton, born in Gloucester am 47 yeers of age-and 
have been engaged in the fisheries, 25 years I was engaged in buying 
Herring at Newfoundland in the four successive winters of 1865, 1866, 
1867, and 1868. ; 

These Herring were frozen for bait and for the fresh fish trade of New 
York and other American cities, I paid from one Dollar to One Dollar 
& seventy five cents per Barrel in gold, I bought the herring of the 
fishermen direct who were very glad to sell them. I have seen over 50 
American vessels at one time taking Herring at Fortune Bay averaging 
$1200,00 each for the Herring bought When I first visited Fortune 
Bay the people were very poor this was the first commencement of the 
Herring trade by the Americans most of them living in log huts and 
subsisting on Herring and some potatoes. The prices of Herring has 
been increased largely by the American trade and at the rates now 
asked there can be no money made by buying them for the American 
market. The American demand for Herring can be supplied from the 
Eastern shores of Maine and the Bay of Fundy the voyage is not so 
dangerous and can be made more profitable. At the present time our 
winter & spring fleet is largely supplied with Herring from Maine it 
being brought fresh by rail direct and at about the same cost. The 
American fleet is not dependent on Newfoundland for bait but use it as 
a convenience which they vastly overpay in the price paid for Herring at 
the present time Last Winter the Herring from Maine and Grand 
Menan completely glutted our Market and large quantities were thrown 
oreoerd in the Harbor of Gloucester, being spoilt for want of cus- 

omers, 
HARVEY KNOWLTON JR 


ESSEX 8. 8. 


Personally appeared said Knowlton, and made oath to the truth of 
the above Statement. 
Before me 


MASss 


AARON PARSONS 
Justice of the Peace. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3297 
No. 227. 


GLOUCESTER Aug 17, 1877. 


I Dennis C Murphy was born at St Johns Newfoundland am 39 years 
of age and on oath do depose and say that I have been engaged in the fish- 
eries 10 years from Gloucester on the Grand Banks and St peirre Bank 
Iam thoroughly acquiinted with the fisheries of Newfoundland. The 
universal practice of the American Fishermen is to buy bait of the 
Inhabitants and pay cash for it I have paid as low as one Dollar and 
as high as three Dollars in gold per Barrel for Herring bait at Newfound- 
land and from eighty cents to two Dollars per Hundred for Squid. It 
is only about 3 years since we have bought bait at Newfoundland I[ 
could buy bait at St peirres. I was the first Captain that bought bait 
at Conception Bay when I was in the Carrie T Dagle The Inhabitants 
of Newfoundland asked Ten Dollars a Ton for Ice and I would not pay 
it and went up to 47° north and took some from an Iceberg. The Cus- 
toms authorities make us pay Water taxes, heavy pilotage, all the sup- 
plies are charged at the highest rates. This trade with the Americans 
has made whole communities prosperous there is no other market for 
this bait except the fishing vessels, and Herring and Squid are so plenty 
that they are washed a shore on the beaches, there is a jealousy of the 
American fishermen because they are more successfull than their people 
I have never caught any fish witbin three miles of the British shores. 
The American Cod and Halibut fisheries are exclusively a deep sea fish- 
ery within no national jurisdiction. I never knew of any American 
vessel selling fish at Newfoundland the small Codfish are just as good 
to strip up as the large, I never fished for bait on the British coast 
and I know that every American Vessel that takes bait at Newfound- 
Jand buys and paysforit in cash If we did not take bait at Newfound- 
land we could use Porgie and clams, takeng them from the United States 
and at no greater cost, I have been Master of the Schooners, James 
Bliss, Harvey C Mackey Lizzie A Tarr, Frank A Williams Wachusett, 
Lizzie K Clark, Carrie T Dagle, Centennial, all are engaged in the bank 
fisheries. I have stocked as high as $17,000,00 a year in this business 
and as low a $9,000,00 a year. 

D C MURPHY 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 


ESSEX Ss. AUGUST 18th 1877 
Then personally appeared the above named Dennis C. Murphy and 
made oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true, to 
the best of his knowledge and belief. before me 
(Seal.) DAVID W. LOW 
. Notary Public 


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 
DISTRICT AND COUNTY OF GASPF 
GASPE BASIN 
, August 1st 1877 
I, the undersigned, John S. Ascah,—of Gaspé Bay,—North—Master 
of the schooner “ Seaflower” of Gaspé Basin,—do hereby solemnly de- 
clare as follows viz— ‘ 
That for thirty five years I have been engaged in the Whale—Cod— 


207 F 


ee 


| 


3298 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


and Mackerel fisheries—of the waters of the Gulf of St Lawrence and 
the Coast of Labrador, in charge of a fishing schooner,— Whaling in the 
Straits of Belle Isle and to the Northwards—Codfishing in the gulf and 
on the coast of Labrador—And taking Mackerel in the Bay de Chaleur 
—lIn the years 1850 to 1856—I fished in company with American fisher- 
men—and often had the use of their Seines to draw my bait—without 
charge—willingly granted—and moreover always kindly assisted when 
required—and I know personally of valuable services rendered freely by 
them to a number of our Gaspé fishermen—I do not hesitate to say that 
I believe candidly—speaking—and unprejudiced Gaspé fishermen, firmly 
believe that the greater their intercourse—and dealings with American 
fishermen in Canadian waters—the greater they profit by the inter- 
course: which is the experience of former years, for, Comparatively, but 
few American fishermen have been seen in these waters for the last ten 
years—I have not seen Americans curing fish or drying nets on the 
shores of the Gulf waters.—Mackerel fishivg—was their chief fishery— 
but for the last ten years—this fish has been disappearing ;—and to 
such an extent—that now I would consider—it, undoubtedly—a very 
risky enterprise to fit out a schooner, even from here,—to engage in that 
branch of the fisheries. 

.If Canadian fishermen had the means—or were independent—they 
could take their fish and oil to markets in the United States and make 
greater profits than American fishermen in their own ports.—That is 
obvious. Our fishing and coasting schooners are about—from forty to 
seventy-five tons burthen ;—the larger size costing about four thousand 
dollars :—wages to men are $16. @ $20 per month—and provisions are 
much lower in price than in the United States.—It seems as if enter- 
prise—was wanting, that more fish is not taken to the Uuited States by 
Canadians—while it is exempt from duty. 

JOHN S ASCAH 


Declared and Subscribed to before me, this first day of August 1877, 
at Gaspé Basin 
(Seal.) GEO: H. HOLT 
U. S. Consul 
No. 229. 


PorT OF GASPE 
COUNTY AND DIsTRICT OF GASPE 
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 


I—Benjamin Asselin, Master of the British schooner ‘‘Speedy,” of 
Gaspé, do hereby solemnly declare, that I have been connected with the 
fishery business of the Gulf of St Laurence for about twenty four years 
and that for the greater period of that time—the transportation of fish 
has been my chiet employment ;—between the fishery stations and the 
shipping ports ;—that my vocation has afforded me an experience of the 
fisheries in the gulf, which is not excelled—if equalled—by others ;— 
that from my own personal knowledge, I am aware that the mackerel 
fishery has been declining for several years past and I consider that it 
has now become so reduced and precarious as to offer no encouragement 
for the pursuit of that enterprise in these waters. 

My occupation brings me annually,—during the fishing season,—in 
the close vicinity of many of the principal fishery stations in the Gulf— 


and I am enabled to say that American fishermen have not been accus- | 


tomed to land on the shores to dry nets, cure fish &te—as a practice— 
so far as I have been able to observe ;—in accordance with the privilege 
granted to them by the Treaty of Washington of 1871.— 


y we 


pat al 
. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3299 


I am positive that the inhabitants of the coasts have derived much 
benefit from the visits and intercourse of American fishermen formerly— 
by tbe improvement in their trade—by selling supplies and bait. 

I further declare that I have given this subject much reflection and 
deem it right to freely express my belief as herein noted. The words 
“twenty-four years” added on the margin before signing 


Gaspé June 18th 1877 
BENJAMIN ASSELIN 


Declared and subscribed to, this eighteenth day of June 1877. before 
me at Gaspé 
(Seal.) GEO: H. HOLT 
U. 8. Consul 
No. 230. 


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 
DISTRICT OF GASPE 
DOUGLASTOWN August 6th 1877. 


I, the undersigned,—Luke M’Auley of Douglastown—in the Bay of 
Gaspé do hereby solemnly declare as follows. viz— 

That I have been fishing in and about the Bay of Gaspé for about 
forty years—without intermission—during the fishing seasons—taking 
principally codfish and mackerel—That from the year 1866—until the 
present time, the Mackerel fishery has been very poor—I have had inter- 
course with a great many American fishermen during my life time,—in 
the Bay of Gaspé—previous to the year 1866.—and very frequently have 
sold them supplies—and often have received valuable assistance from 
them on the fishing grounds, and I know of many of my neighbors who 
have also received benefits—without charge, at their hands—And my 
firm opinion is that they are of far more benefit to our fishermen—in 
these waters—than detrimental to our successful pursuit of the fisher- 
ies—In fact they were always ready and willing to render assistance to 
us fishermen when we needed—and I have heard many of my neighbors 
express themselves to this effect— 

I have never seen American fishermen cure fish or dry their nets on 
shore— 

My experience with American fishermen has been such that I would 
be pleased to see them at all times in our waters— Many years and many 
times they have been to my house and spent hours with my family—and 
I have never seen them misbehave themselves. 

Our vessels cost so much less than American vessels—and sailing 
them at so much less expense—there is no reason why Canadian fisher- 
men could not sell fish and oil at a greater profit in the markets of the 
United States than American fishermen in their own ports— 

There is no fishermen, now here, who has fished in the Bay of Gaspé— 


longer than I have—or as long. 
LUKE McAULEY 
Subscribed and declared before me this sixth day of August 1877 at 


Douglastown 
GEO: H HOLT 
(Seal.) U. S. Consul 
No. 231. 


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 
DISTRICT AND COUNTY OF GASPE 
GASPE Basin July 9th 1877 


I, the undersigned,—John Howell—of Sandy Beach—Gaspé,—Mas- 
ter—(and part owner) of the Schooner ‘ Undaunted ”—of the Port of 


. = 


3300 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Gaspé; do—hereby declare solemnly that—I am now about forty-eight - 


years of age—that since the age of eleven years, I have been constantly 
engaged in the business of the fisheries,—both in fishing and transport- 
ing fish.—in the Gulf ‘of St Lawrence along the North shore from 
Natashquan to the Moisie river,—and off the North side of Anticosti, 
—taking codfish—only.—excepting Halibut when caught on the lines.— 
(but we do not fish for the latter purposely.—) We do not catch one 
half of the quantity of fish we caught about eighteen years ago—.on 
an average—The fisheries have evidently declined for a number of years 
past—from what cause—it is impossible to say— 

Mackerel fish are disappearing from their former usual haunts.— 
About eleven years ago—on the North side of Anticosti—we seined in 
our boats—about two hundred barrels in one fishing season—but since 
that time the Mackerel have appeared there but once in numbers—and 
we have had no other opportunity to make a haul of them—as they clear 
right away again—immediately after showing themselves—and we can- 
not tell where they go to.—American fishing vessels used to be seen by us 
in large numbers about fifteen years ago—but since that time they are 
only rarely seen—in our fishing waters—excepting near the Magdalen 
Islands,—& Prince Edward Island. In my experience of about thirty 
seven years on the water—and coast, I cannot remember to have seen 
American fishermen curing fish or drying nets on shore,—with the 
exception of one summer at Grande Grave, Gaspé Bay,—many years 
ago. I consider that it is a great advantage to the people of the shores 
—for American fishermen to buy bait,—supplies—&te from them—for 
they profit by the transactions—and get money—which they would not 
otherwise get.—In the days when the Mackerel fishing was good—the 
people did well—for Americans spent a good deal of money on the 


coast. For the last twelve or fourteen years I have been fishing regu- 


larly off the coast of Anticosti,—during the fishing seasons, with my 
own vessel and crew, and am intimately acquainted with the fisheries 
around that island—my opinion is that Mackerel will never appear again 
at Anticosti as in former years—they are too long gone now— 

I believe that from the less cost of building,—equipping, and man- 
ning our fishing vessels, and being upon the spot—that we could take 
our fish into American ports—and undersell American fishermen in their 
own markets—if we possessed the energy to make the attempt— 

I declare solemnly to my belief in the truth of the foregoing state- 
ment which I have made with deliberation. 

JOHN HOWELL 


Declared and subscribed to before me, this ninth day of July 1877, at 
Gaspé Basin: 
(Seal.) GEO: H HOLT— 
U. S. Consul 
No. 232. 4 
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 
GASPE BASIN June 23rd. 1877 


I.—William Howell—of Sandy Beach—Gaspé Bay,—do hereby sol- 
emnly declare—that my occupation is that of a fisherman—that. I have 
fished in the bay of Gaspé ;—off Island of Anticosti, and Straits of Labra- 
dor—for Mackerel—Codfish and Whales—Herring &c—for the past 
twenty six years—on the best fishing grounds of the Gulf of St Law- 
rence and adjacent waters.—In former years—say from 1854—to 1865— 
I have been accustomed to take during the fishing season—from fifteen 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, ao0n 


to thirty barrels of Mackerel per boat with two men :—that previous to 
that time the catch was about one third larger—but since the year 1865 

the Mackerel fishery has been declining so that I have not been able to 
catch more than from one to five barrels per boat—in the fishing seasons 

—in the bay of Gaspé—which in former years was considered the best 

fishing bay in northern waters—My catch for the last two years was 

one half barrel of mackerel each year—I live on the shore of the fishing 

ground and pay particular attention to the movements of mackerel espec- 
ially,—I believe the fish come in about two thirds less than formerly to 

the bay—but only to spawn—they won’t bite and go out again—& Lam 

well aware that they do spawn in our bay,—When we can catch any— 
it is only in stormy weather—Up to the year 1855. I have seen as many 

as Sixty five sail of American fishing vessels—in the bay of Gaspé— 

filling rapidly with Mackerel—at the same time.—Since then—the num- 
ber of American vessels fishing in the bay has been annually decreasing 

—For the last few years—they have rarely appeared—Last year two 

American fishing vessels came in but did not succeed iu finding fish-—I - 
have conversed with my neighbors—who are also fishermen, frequently, 

and they agree with me in the opinion that the American fishermen in 

our waters have been of no detriment to our fisheries—but on the con- 

trary have been beneficial to us by their intercourse in purchasing bait 

and supplies—besides it is a known fact that we have caught more 

Mackerel when they have been in our proximity—Unfortunately for us 

—since they have acquired the right by the Treaty to the inshore fish- 

eries—we have seen less of them than before— 

The honest and candid belief and expression of the fishermen of the 
coast is that the American fishermen have done no damage to the Ca- 
nadian fisheries— 

The Fishery of the Mackerel in the Province of Quebec is only pur- 
sued by catching by boats—and nets—No vessels fitted out for this fish- 
ery—Canadian fishermen—in the Gulf do not fish for Halibut—but . 
occasionally they are taken on the Cod lines— 

My experience in the fisheries has been—as I have observed—of many 
years—and there are but few men on the Coast who do not know me as 
a fisherman— 

I Subscribe to this with a full knowledge of its Contents— 

WILLIAM HOWELL 


Declared and subscribed to before me this tweuty third day of June 
1877, at Gaspé’ Basin 
(Seal.) GEO: H HOLT 
U. S. Consul 


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC 
: District AND COUNTY OF GASPE— 
GAsPk BASIN July 28th 1877 


I—the Undersigned, Charles Stewart—of New Carlisle—Gaspé— 
Now—Master of the Schooner “IP. Palmer” of Gaspé—do hereby 
solemnly declare—as follows—I am about fifty-seven years of age,— 
for about thirty years I have been in command of a vessel employed in 
the business of the fisheries of the Gulf of St Lawrence—and have had 
ample opportunities to observe the yield of the various fisheries along 
the Coasts and shoals of the Gulf for many years past.—It is many years 
since I have seen American fishermen—fishing for Cod fish near the 
Shore and in all my experience on the waters of the Gulf I have never 


¢ 


3302 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


observed them (American fishermen) Curing fish, or drying their nets 
on shore—I have seen them buying bait and Supplies from the residents 
of the Coasts—in former years;—and know of no Case—where, in 
these dealings they have given dissatisfaction—but on the contrary—I 
believe that their presence in the vicinity of the fishing people has been 
of advantage to the latter—and to be desirable—Since the Mackerel 
have disappeared from their usual haunts, within a few years past, 
American fishermen have been rarely seen in the bay of Gaspé—formerly 
one of the finest fishing grounds for Mackerel— 

It is a well known fact that Canadians can build vessels cheaper and 
sail them at a lower cost, than Americans—and the fish being at their 
very doors—as it were— it is plain that Canadian fishermen should be 
able to carry their fish to American ports.—and make better sales as to 
profit—the duty being off,—than American fishermen who have to come 
so far from their own ports— 

CHARLES STEWART 


Declared and Subscribed to before me this twenty eighth day of July 


1877 
GEO: H HOLT 
(Seal.) U. S. Consul 
No. 234. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 21, 1877. 


I, Christopher C. Poole, Master of the American schooner John Wesley, 
do on oath depose and say, that I was born in Rockport, Mass.; have 
been engaged in the fisheries for over 30 years. I have been in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence mackereling 30 seasons. My highest stock there was 
3,500 dollars for a season. Last year was my poorest season, stocking 
ouly 200 dollars. 1 bought the John Wesley in 1866; during that time 
she has been six years mackereling, and five years coasting. Previous 
to this she was owned at Cape Cod. She is 42 tons new measurement, 
will carry 300 barrels. I always fished at the Magdalen 4Islands, which 
is the principal American fishing ground. I have taken a good many 
mackerel on Banks Orphan and Bradley, and in my experience, I have 
never taken one barrel of mackerel in ten within the three-mile limit. I 
have just arrived from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and brought home 190 
barrels that I bought from the English boat fishermen. I went prepared 
to fish with my own vessel, but finding the prospect so poor, I bought 
these mackerel and came home. 

I bought my mackerel for two cents apiece out of the boats, averaging 
300 to a barrel. 


I cannot save myself a dollar by this trip. I left the Gulf the 5th of » 


September. I saw many American vessels at Port Hood and at Canso, 
and none of them had done anything. Some vessels left the Bay with- 
out having been able to take a single mackerel. This is about as poor 
a season as | have ever witnessed in the Bay, and with few exceptions, 
every vessel there will fail to pay their expenses. 

CHRISTOPHER C. POOLE. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
ESSEX SS., GLOUCESTER, Sept. 21st, 1877. 
Subscribed and sworn to by above named Christopher C. Poole, 


before me 
DAVID W. LOW, 
Notary Public. 


| 
| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3303 
No. 235. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 17, 1877. 


I, Russell D. Terry, born in Nova Scotia, master of the American 
schooner Addie R. Terry, do on oath depose and say that I have just 
returned from a trip to the coast of Maine for mackerel, having been 
absent four weeks. 

I landed 20 bbls. No. 1 Mackerel, 

“ ce 130 be Late, 

it] “c 62 (73 s<“ 8 “ 
worth and sold for 2,376 dollars. The average catch during the time 
I was there was 100 bbls, to each vessel. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 17 seasons. My best stock 
there for a full season was 8000 dollars. My poorest stock for a full 
season was 500 dollars. 

I caught the most of my mackerel around the Magdalens and some 
at P. E. Island. I think including the years previous to 1870 that one 
fifth of the mackerel I took were taken within the three mile limit 
including the Magdalen Islands. 

I consider that to be a fair estimate for the other American vessels 
that were in company with me. 

CAPT. RUSSELL D. TERRY. 


ESSEX, 8. 8., 
GLOUCESTER, Sept. 17, 1877. } 


Personally appeared the above named Russell D. Terry who sub- 
scribed and made oath that the above statement is true, before me. 


ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace and Spec. Dep. Collector of Customs for 


DISTRICT OF GLOUCESTER. 


No. 236. 


1, William Herrick, of Swan’s Island, Me., on oath, depose and say, 
that I am master of Schooner Cyanne, of Salem, Mass. That I have 
just arrived from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from a mackerel voyage. 
The said schooner went through the Strait of Canso the 11th day of 
July, 1877. Between Cape George and Port Hood, we caught our first 
fish, 25 wash barrels, from 8 to 10 miles from shore. On the North side of 
East Point, of Prince Edward Island, we took 200 wash barrels, caught 
in four schools, the one nearest the land was over 3 miles off, the others, 
6 or more miles off. This was the 17th or 18th of July. Two days after- 
wards, at same place, took 90 wash barrels, 60 of them from one school, 
over 4 miles from land, and 30 in another school within 3 miles from the 
land or shore. Took 15 wash barrels off Kildare, within three miles 
from shore, (about two and-a-half miles). The balance of my trip, I 
picked up on the hook, scattering from 4 to 10 miles from shore, cruis- 
ing in Bay of Chaleur, down along the Island, and to Port Hood. Found 
no mackerel in Bay Chaleur, and very few anywhere. Spoke 25 sail of 
vessels in my cruise, who all reported mackerel very scarce. Finding 
nothing to stop for, and no prospect ahead of finding mackerel, I left 
for home, and arrived at Gloucester, Aug. 30th, 1877, with 320 sea bar- 
rels, and packed out about 300. 


= 


3304 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


That I chartered my vessel for $225 per month, of Charles E. Fabens, : 


of Salem, finding my own Seines and Gear. 


Charter of Vessel, 2 months.......- dda en Bare paler eens eae kee -co $450 
Seines, (2), Boat’s Value, $2,000, 2 months use. ......-...-.-.- 300 
Onutfits.of Provisions, Lines, We. =. sai..6 sc sass dee sieeve de ere 400 
16 hands @ $30 per Month, 2 Months............... Sete el sents - Tea 
Captain’s Wages, 2 Months ...... 22.22. 2-2 eee cece cee eee e cee 150 
Insurance of Seines and Seine Boats..........-..- ey os as 30 
Sal Guus ssn se Sposa, eis nw walters eles enemas Mate tale wiorele cisietatett 140 
$2, 430 
RECEIPTS. 

10 bbls. No. Vs @ $ 16, $160 

170 “* No.Zs@ 104, 1,785 

120 “* No. vs @ 74, 900 

$2,845 


STOCK EXPENSE. 


25 bbls. Pogie bait, | $162.50 
Packing 300 bbls., and Barrels, &c., 525,00 687,50 


$2,157.50 2,157.50 


Actual loss by the voyage, $ 272.50 


That this trip is the best one brought. home from the Gulf of St Law- 
rence this season. That my men were hired on shares, but in the above 
estimate of the voyage, I have charged as wages what is paid to the crew 
of the schooner John Gerard, of Newburyport, whose whole crew are on 
wages, instead of shares. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ten seasons, five of which as 
master. Have fished in all parts of the Gulf, and consider myself well 
posted in its fisheries. I was master of schr Amos Cutter the last year 
previous to this. That I was in the Gulf four years ago. We took 40 
barrels, not one fish of which, do I believe, we caught within the three 
mile limit from shore. Was gone two and a-half months, and tried every- 
where that mackerel are likely to be found in the Fall of the year with- 
out success. Six years ago, I was in the Gulf, in the schr Wm. J. Dale, 
and took 260 barrels in a two months voyage, all of which, with excep- 
tion of 20 barrels, were caught at the Magdalene Islands—the 20 barrels 
were caught 20 miles from shore of Cape Miscou. This trip sold for six 
dollars and fifty cents per barrel, and was a losing voyage. During the 
five seasons in the Gulf as master, I have brought home 1300 barrels of 
Derereh not over 250 barrels were caught within three miles from the 
shore. 

In all my experience, during the ten years I have fished in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence, the vessel I was in myself, nor any vessel I ever saw 
or heard of, ever interfered with the boat fishermen in any manner, the 
best of feeling always existing between the American and English jish- 
ermen. When anchored inshore, they always come aboard, and gota 
little bait; and I never knew, or heard of a fleet of American fishermen 
running in among boat fishermen for maekerel, but have seen British 
boats a great many times run out among the fleet while fishing. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3305 


I have trans-shipped mackerel twice, the first time from Canso. The 
vessel was so long coming (four weeks) that we gained by it, mackerel 
rising in value. I was then in the Barbara Fritchie, and sent home 260 
barrels. The second time, from Charlottetown, by steamer, sending 
home 150 barrels from same schooner, costing $1.00 per barrel to get 
them home. In the six weeks following, I only took 40 barrels of 
mackerel, which was all I did take for that trip, besides what had been 
sent home, and would have made money not to have trans-shipped any 
mackerel home, but bave taken them home in the schooner. 

All the years I have been to the Gulf, $100, in gold, each year, on an 
average, was paid to British traders for goods, for which we paid more 
than we could have procured them for at home. 

The last three years I have been fishing off our American shores in 
schrs Glad Tidings and Rebecca M. Atwood. In the schr. Glad Tidings 
we landed 1750 barrels of mackerel, stocking $13,600—mnet stock. In the 
Atwood, two years ago, we landed 900 barrels of mackerel, stocking 
$10,300, net. Last year, in same schooner, (Rebecca M. Atwood), we 
landed 2700 barrels of mackerel, net stock, being $11,000. 

That the mackerel being small here, the first of season, and hearing 
of large quantities of mackerel being in the Bay, I was induced to go 
there, much to my sorrow and regret now, for I found that I had been 
deceived by the stories told, and despatches published in the papers, to 
draw American fishermen to the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year. I feel 
satisfied, that had [ remained on our own shores, I should have done 
much better. Our shore mackerel are better in quality than Bay. 

WILLIAM HERRICK. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


CoUNTY OF ESSEX, SS. GLOUCESTER, Sept. 4th, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named William Herrick, and 
made oath that all his statements above subscribed are true, to the 
best of his knowledge and belief, before me, 

(L. 8S.) DAVID W. LOW, 

Notary Public. 


No. 237. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 28, 1877. 


I, Thomas H. White, master of the schooner Hyperion, of Gloucester, 
Mass., do on oath depose and say :— 

I was born in Margaree, Cape Breton; am 29 years of age; have been 
engaged in the fisheries for the past 17 years. I have been master of 
the schooners John T. Tyler, Finance, and my present vessel, the Hyperion, 

I have just returned from atrip to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mack- 
erel. I brought home 225 sea-barrels of mackerel, mostly twos. I com- 
menced to fit my vessel on the Ist of July, and sailed from Gloucester 
on the 5th; arrived in the Bay on the 12th of July. My first mackerel 
I took off East Point on the hook, (I had no seine) about 15 wash barrels 
2 miles from the shore, and of the remainder of the trip of mackerel we 
a certainly one-half inside of the three mile limit and the rest out- 
side. 


The charter of my vessel is worth for two months..........- $500. 00 
My men’s time is worth $30 per month; 14 men at $30, 2 

MMNAOOON cos oasis ice tea een einn yaw eee en:s aes Shae 900. 00 
err ree rre retry. ree rere eee 600. 00 


3306 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
TAU TEGO ho fo ot oh OLR See ee erate nea tia Ra eee oo em 100. 00 
41 Bbla: Bait; $4-per Dbls2 6.2 sci wes ans seme s nen joccer cess ‘164. 00 
RCRD occas 7-8 Pere ere eee er eee Petre sels 154. 00 © 
RANGSS OG. ole ace see te bie tw aa alain evils arin ae 6 ates ae 25. 00 
$1943. 00 
Receipts : 
205 packed: Dbla: at SDs. 2 fe eee nie oa ieieelne orate © $2300. 00 
Net profits \scawen sects ee ues eae eon $357. 00 


When I first arrived in the Bay I thought the prospect was good for 
a large catch, when I came away it looked altogetber different. There 
was about 100 sail of American vessels there and those that we spoke 
would average from 25 to 50 barrels each. I have been in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence mackereling four seasons. My highest stock for a whole 
season was $4,500. My lowest stock was $3,000. Any American ves- 
sel as they are now fitted must stock $4,500 for a seasons mackereling 
in the Gulf to pay their bills. 

I have fished part of two seasons off the American coast for mackerel. 
I made on one trip 52 dollars in 3 weeks. Ialso made three trips taking 
two months time and made over 100 dollars. I have been boat fishing 
from Margaree and it is the general practice to throw offal overboard. 
I never heard of such a thing as injury to the fish from this source. If 
this had been an injury there would not be any fish in the Gulf now. 
The American cod and halibut fishery is a deep sea fishery entirely. 
From my experience in the mackerel fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
the American vessels do not take more than one-third of their mackerel 
within three miles of the shore, that is not including the Magdalen 
Islands. There has been a good deal of trading by American vessels 
which is an advantage to the people. I am of the opinion that from my 
knowledge of the people there is a strong prejudice against the Ameri- 
can fishermen. I should say this sentiment has been fostered for a pur- 
pose. As a general thing heretofore the people on the coast have been 
very friendly and never before have I heard any complaints by the boat 
fishermen or traders of the American fishermen. The people were always 
glad to have them come to trade with them and it has been a great help 
in many ways to the people living near the shore to have the American 
fleet down there giving employment to the men and buying of the farm- 
ers and traders. Any other ideas I think must be born of prejudice as 
any one disposed to be fair will say. 

I know that the average catch of American vessels for the last 15 years 
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not over 350 barrels each. I have been 
one trip to Newfoundland for herring. I bought my herring of the peo- 
ple and paid for it mostly in cash. It is of great advantage to the people 
of Newfoundland to have the Americans buy their herring. They would 
almost be in a starving condition if it were not for this trade. 

THOMAS H. WHITE. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
COUNTY OF ESSEX, SS., GLOUCESTER, August 28th, 1877. 

Then personally appeared the above named Thomas H. White and 
made oath that all the above statesment by him subscribed are true, 
before me, 

DAVID W. LOW, 
(L. 8.) Notary Public. 


; Fs 
eeu 


a 


. a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3307 
No. 238. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 28, 1877. 


I, Charles Lee, Master of the schooner J. J. Clark, of Gloucester, on 
oath do depose and say, that I was born in New York, am 40 years of 
age, and have been engaged in the fisheries 20 years. 

I have just returned from a trip to the Gulf of St. Lawrtnce. 

I commenced to fit my vessel for this trip on the 1st of July, sailed 
from Gloucester on the 5th of July, arrived in the Bay.on the 12th of 
July. I caught my first mackerel off the east point P E. Island, taking 
one hundred barrels in the seine. This was outside of the three-mile 
limit; caught the rest of my trip—130 barrels—on the hook, about 12 
to 15 miles from the shore of Prince Edward Island. We set our seine 
about 20 times to take what mackerel we got in it. The entire time con- 
sumed in this trip is just two months. My vessel is nearly new; cost 
$9,000. She is 70 tons new measurement, carries 14 men. My two 
seines and boat cost me $1,500. 


The charter of my vessel is worth $250 per month ........ $500 00 
The wear and tear of seines, boats, &c.. : pices 200 00 
Wages of 14 men two months, at $30 per ‘month . raaee 900 00 
Ontfits, including provisions, brls. salt etc.........-....26. 600 00 
MMB PANO. ilar eg sis a et rasae pit a a's gies a alas 8 Sse uae ass Eaten ictio 100 00 
| rg TCLS Va Vo eee ea Pa ae Nene e PE Dae Sina Male Re pace ewe ek ae ck 173 00 
PANGS, DOOKS ELC; 5 a.cwiss! wena ie <s.4ae eee rs ais Sih lane las 25 00 

Total cost‘of trip:.: 2.66.0: OLE osha wrela las ie ee ete .. $2,498 00 

RECEIPTS. 

230 barrels of mackerel, MiP LES Wotckn cane ants Sen neemes 2,645 00 

INGO DIONG cos cas eck Seas wie si meee eaten dale aiaace wales $147 00 


With one exception, this is the best trip taken that I know of in the 
Bay this year. I spoke a number of American vessels when I came out 
of the Bay, and they would not average 25 bris. each. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 13 seasons mackereling; 
about ten years as master of the vessel. 

During that time it was necessary to stock 5,000 dollars in a season, 
in the Bay, to pay the bills. [ have, asa general thing, done much better 
than the average of American vessels in the Bay. Most of the time I 
have owned my vessel. I have also fished for mackerel on the American 
Shore, and I have always done better there than in the Bay; take ten 
consecutive years, and I have landed double the amount of mackerel 
from shore mackereling than from Bay mackereling, and the American 
shore mackerel are of better quality and sell for more money. In all the 
mackereling I have done in the Bay I have not taken one barrel in ten 
within three miles of the shore. The boat fishing from the shore is 
seldom, or ever, interfered with by the schooners, and I never knew of 
any boat being injured by our vessels. I have always found the people 
anxious for us to trade with them, and in the traps-shipment of mack- 
erel a large portion used to be in ’British bottoms, before the steamer 
run. 

I have been to the Magdalens this Spring for herring, in the schooner 
Orient, 94 tons. Took 652 bris. of herring for Boston. We calculated 
to take 1,400. We bought all our herring from the English seiners. 
We hired boats at Canso to take the herring from the seine to our ves- 


3308 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


sel; this is the universal custom of American vessels. All the labor 
and profits of the taking is with the British subjects. There was over 
50 sail of American vessels there, and some got no herring at all; and 
no vessel while I was there got fully loaded. Both the herring and 
mackerel fisheries are very uncertain. 

In the Newfoundland herring fishery I have always bought and paid 
for the herring in cash. The Newfoundland Customs Officers oblige 
American vessels to pay duties on barrels in which the herring are 
packed, although the barrels are never landed or leave the vessels, but 
are carried down there and brought away without touching the shore. 
They also charge light dues, averaging 25 dollars to each American ves- 
sel; in fact, there are no fees neglected. The American cod and hali- 
but fishery is purely a deep-sea fishery. The few American vessels that 
go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence for codfish, take them 12 to 15 miles 
from the shore, or on Banks Bradley or Orphan. The throwing over- 
board of mackerel cleanings never injured the mackerel or fish. I never 
heard of such a thing. 

CHARLES LEE. 


I, John F. Peoples, having been on this trip, this last two months, to 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, hereby on oath declare that the statement is 


true in every particular. 
JOHN F. PEEPLES. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


COUNTY OF ESSEX, Ss. GLOUCESTER, Aug. 28, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named Charles Lee and John F. 
Peeples, and made oath that all the statements subscribed to by said Lee 
are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. 

Before me, 
(L. 8.) DAVID W. LOW. 
Notary Public. 


s 


I, Joseph McPhee, of Gloucester, in the State of Massachusetts, ship 


carpenter, on cath, depose and say, that I was born in Prince Edward 
Island; that in the year 1860 I was with my brother Capt. Daniel 
McPhee (now deceased) in sch. Daniel McPhee, of Gloucester, that said 
schooner fitted at the firm of Sinclair and Low, that on our first trip to 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the summer of 1860, we took dories, that we 
tried for mackerel at Seven Island’s, found none, got a few off Bartlett’s 
Cove, tried off Mount Louis and Madeline River and went home in 
September with sixteen or seventeen barrels of mackerel. That Joseph 
Campbell was not in said schooner the trip above mentioned, nor was 
he one of the crew the fall trip of said schooner in which we caught 
most of our trip of 125 bbls. of mackerel off Magdalen Islands, between 
10 and 15 miles south east from Entry Island. Some were caught off 
Malpeque and some off Margaree. That of said catch less than one- 
tenth of them were caught within three miles from the shore; that we 
took no dories on our second trip and did not go to the Seven Islands. 
JOSEPH McPHEE. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
COMMONWEATH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

COUNTY OF ESSEX, 8. 8., CITY OF GLOUCESTER. 

Personally appeared before me, this twenty-first day of September, 
A. D. 1877, the above-named Joseph McPhee, to me well known, and 


™_ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3309 


made solemn oath to the truth of the foregoing statement by him sub- 


scribed. 
CYRUS STORY, 
Yotary Public in and for said County. 


No. 240. 


I, William Parsons, 2nd, of Gloucester, in the State of Massachusetts, 
on oath depose and say, that [ am senior member of the firm of William 
Parsons, 2nd, & Co., owners and fitters of schooner Gen’l Burnside, that 
said schooner went to the Gulf of St. Lawrence from said firm only two 
seasons 1864 and 1865; that in 1864 I find in the crew list of said 
schooner the name of J. McDonald whose share of the trip in said 
schooner was $121.60; the vessels share was $2,242.84; that said vessel 
was engaged in making her one voyage in 1864, from August 1st to 
November 10th, and packed out 462 barrels of mackerel. 

WM. PARSONS, 2nd. 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
ESSEX, SS., GLOUCESTER, Sept. 21st, 1877. 

Then personally appeared the above named William Parsons, 2nd, 
and made oath that the above statement by him subscribed is true, 
before me, 

DAVID W. LOW, 
Notary Public. 
No. 241. 


I, Solomon Pool, a resident of Gloucester, in the State of Massachu- 
setts, on oath, depose and say, that I was formerly of the firm,of Pool 
and Cunningham and part owner and fitter of the schooner Daniel Web- 
ster, that I have examined the books of said firm and find that said 
schooner in the year 1859 made two trips to the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
after mackerel, that she was engaged from the last of June till Novem- 
ber 23rd; that from her first trip was packed two hundred and fifty-one 
and one-half barrels (2514) only. Her net stock amounting to $1,936.72, 
ove half of which was shared among her crew. That from her second 
trip to the Bay, was packed twenty (20) barrels of mackerel only. Her 
net stock amounting to $164.10, one half of which was shared among 
her crew. 

That I have looked for the name of James or Joseph Campbell on my 
books, and cannot find it neither name appearing on them. 

SOLOMON POOL, 


Subscribed and sworn to by above named Solomon Pool, this day 
of September, A. D., 1877, before me. 
DAVID W. LOW, 


Notary Public. 
No. 242. 


GLOUCESTER, October 10th, 1877. 


I, Benjamin Swim of Gloucester, Mass., on oath depose and say, that 
I was born at Barrington, Nova Scotia, am 27 years of age, and am 
now Master of schooner Sarah C. Pyle, of Gloucester, and have been 
since April of this year—have been engaged in codfishing during that 
time, have landed 150,000 Ibs. of codfish and about 3,000 Ibs. of hali- 
but; and caught them all, both codfish and halibut, on Western Banks, 


Se 


3310 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


The nearest to the shore that I have caught fish of any kind this year - 


is at least forty miles. 
BENJAMIN SWIM, 
Master of schr. Sarah C. Pyle. 


ESSEX SS. GLOUCESTER, Oct. 10, 1877. 
Personally appeared the above named Benj. Swim, Master of schr. 
Sarah C. Pyle, who subscribed and made oath that the above statement 
by him subscribed is true. Before me, 
ADDISON CARTER, 
(L. 8.) Justice of the Peace and Deputy Collector of Customs. 


‘No. 243. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 29, 1877. 


I, Charles F. Carter, Master of the schr. Falcon, of Gloucester, Mass., 
do on oath depose and say, that I was born at Steep Creek, in the Strait 
of Canso, Nova Scotia, am 39 years of age, have been engaged in the 
fisheries 28 years. I have just returned from a trip from the Gulf of St. 


Lawrence. I commenced to fit my vessel on the 1st of July, 1877, sailed | 


from Gloucester on the 9th, arrived in the Bay on the 14th. Got 30 
barrels on the first day; caught them with a hook in Antigonish Bay. 
We caught them all of five miles from the shore. Went down to the 
East Point, P. E. Island; 10 miles from East Point took a small school 
in the seine; took 20 bris. Afterward, cruised up the Gulf into the 
Bay of Chaleurs, to Bathurst; never got a mackerel, and never saw one; 
then run down to the Magdalen Islands; took 75 brls. on the hook, 5 
miles from Brine Isla:d. The remainder of my trip, or fare, I took in 
various places south of P. E. Island. Took about five barrels inshore, 
not half mile off. I brought home 132 sea barrels, mostly No. 2’s. 

The whole time employed in this trip is just two months. I carried a 
seine-boat and two seines. 


The Charter of my vessel is worth $250 per month......... $500 00 
Crew of 14 Men—wages at $30 per month...... re eRe ee 700 00 
ORURS oe sl sia oe eee Sea eOe tec a eee ee eee 600 00 
Two Seines and Boat—use and wear...... .........-.-.-- 200 00 
ANSUTANCE 2. side ns ces ss eh ee wearer ome eee 100 00 
PANGS OE oni tann se a hoc Soe wae ou eee ee 25 00 

HOtAl GORUs a4 et Races ee Pee ca oes eee ae ne eee $2,125 00 
Inspection-and: Packing 115 barrels «22260 s005. iss seen oe “ 86 25 

RECEIPTS. 

115 packed barrels Mackerel, at $11.50 ........-csccesssce, $1, 322 50 

Acttial TOSS 52s. ic oonaeuoesans sae ass cat eaeeceeee $888 75 


I have been seven seasons in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackereling. 
The higbest stock I ever made there in a season was $4,200.00. My 
lowest stock is this year (that is so far), and I consider the prospect there 
hopeless for the rest of the year. I have fished four years from Canso, in 
the shore boat—fishing, principally for codfish. 

I never knew of any interference or injury from American vessels to 
the English boats. We always, in these boats, dressed our fish going 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3311 


in, throwing the offal overboard. I never heard of such a thing as in- 
jury to the fish, in throwing over fresh offal. In all my experience in 
American vessels, I never knew of any collisions with the boat fisher- 
men; on the contrary, the best of feeling has ever been manifested, the 
boat fishermen coming ov board the American vessels for bait, and also 
to grind their bait in our mills. This last trip I gave away more than 
three barrels of bait to the boat fishermen. I know that there is less 
than one fourth of the mackerel taken by the American fleet, taken 
within three miles. Distance on the water is very deceptive, and look- 
ing from the shore any one would be liable to be deceived in the dis- 
tance a vessel was from the shore, especially when the water is smooth. 
I have often to settle a question among the crew, put over the patent 
log, and run, and invariably the distance supposed to be three miles 
would tally over five miles. This will account for much of the mistaken 
statements of people on shore, as to distance on the water, especially 
off high lands. I have been mackereling more or less on the American 
shore for nearly 20 years. I have stocked on one year’s mackereling, off 
the American shore, $13,600.00, and my lowest stock in any one year 
was $7,200.00. I stocked on the American shore mackereling, last year, 
$11,000.00. 

This year I have seen many of the fish called albicores in the Gulf, in 
the Bay of Chaleur, and all along the coast. I consider this fish as fatal 
to the mackerel and menhadden, as wolves would be among sheep. I 
have seen none of these fish for a number of years before this year, and 
Iam of the opinion, firmly, that the scarcity of mackerel in the Gulf, 
and on all the Atlantic coasts, is owing to their presence. There is a 
mutual convenience in the trading of the American fleet in the Gulf and 
along the Shore. There is really a great benefit derived by the inhabit- 
ants by this trade, and the absence of the American fleet makes a decay 
in business that is universally felt. The mackerel fishery at the best is 
a very uncertain business, and the causes of their being plenty or scarce 
are beyond the computation of any man. 

And there is no such thing as making a safe estimate of value from 
one year to another, and all calculations based on so-called certainties 
as to where the mackerel will be this year, or next, are chimerical. 

I bave been master of the following vessels :—Golden Eagle, Farragut, 
Sea Foam, Falcon. 
CHARLES F. CARTER. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 22th, 1877. 
CouNTY OF ESSEX SS. 

Then personally appeared the above names Charles F. Carter and 
made oath, that all the above statements by him subscribed are true to 
the best of his knowledge and belief. Before me, 

DAVID - W:.. LOW, 
(L. 8.) Notary Public. 


No, 244. 


I, Winthrop Thurston, of Rockport, Mass., on oath, depose and say, 
that I have been accustomed to reside at Grand Manan, N. B., every 
summer for the past fifteen years, and am personally coguisant with the 
mode and manner by which American vessels obtain their bait, which 
is done to great extent; and they uniformly buy their herring for bait 


3312 . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of the inhabitants, paying the cash. Therefore, this custom is of great - 


advantage to the inhabitants, who are very desirous of securing this 
trade. 
WINTHROP THURSTON. 


CustoM HOUSE, GLOUCESTER, 
Oct. 3, 1877. 
Personally appeared the above named Winthrop Thurston, who made 
oath, that the above statement subscribed by him is true, before me, 
ADDISON CARTER, 
Deputy Collector of Customs and Justice of the Peace. 


No. 245. 


I, James A. Colson, of Gloucester, Mass., on oath, depose and say, 
that I have been engaged in fishing for the past six years, and for the 
past 3 years in the Bank fishery. Have been one of the crew of the fol- 
lowing vessels, all of Gloucester, which vessels have been into Grand 
Manan or vicinity for bait:—Schr. D. D. Geyer, Schr. Schuyler Colfax, 
Schr. George S. Boutwell, Schr. Hyperion. Five or six times lL have been 
there, and have usually taken about 50 bbls. of herring at each baiting, 
paying, therefor, from $1 to 82 per barrel. Have never caught any her- 
ring, but have uniformly bought them. Have never known any Ameri- 


can vessel to catch their herring. 
JAMES A. COLSON. 


Custom HOUSE, 
GLOUCESTER, Oct. 2, 1877. ' 


Personally appeared the above named James A. Colson, who sub- 
scribed, and made oath, that the above statement is true. 
(Seal). ADDISON CARTER, 
Deputy Collector and Justice of the Peace. 


No. 246. 


Henry G. Coas, of Gloucester, Mass., on oath, depose and say that, 
was born in Gloucester, am thirty-six years of age, am now master of 
schr. John S. McQuin, of Gloucester, have been master for nine years of 
the schr. Charles H. Hildreth, of said Gloucester, have been in Gulf of 
St. Lawrence seven years of that time mackereling; 1867 I was in the 
Bay the whole season, took 200 bbls in all, caught them off Bradley and 
Bonaventure, caught none of them within 3 miles of the shore; in 1868, 
was in the Bay, and caught 220 bbls on the first trip, (the second trip 
we caught only 6 bbls)—I caught the 220 bbls about 8 miles from shore 
off Muscow, none within 3 miles; in 1869, was in the Bay of St. Law- 
rence, was there the whole season, and caught 130 bbls mackerel, 
caught them all over the Gulf, not 10 bbls, however, were caught within 
three miles of the shore; in 1870, was not in the Bay, went on Georges 
Bank until August, then went off our own shore mackereling, and 
caught 375 bbls on coast of Maine, Middle Bank, and off Cape Cod, 
we caught them in 4 trips—the quality of these mackerel was 
very good, and we got twice as much for them as for Bay mackerel, and 
we made a good year’s work; in 1871, I was engaged in fishing on 
Georges Bank the whole year; in 1872, was in the Gulfof St. Law- 
rence for mackerel, 2 trips, and caught 270 bbls the first trip, and 240 


\ AWARD OF THE: FISHERY COMMISSION. 3313 


bbls the second trip, caught them all but 30 bbls at Madeline Islands, 
(both trips), the 30 bbls we caught around the Island of P. E., about 
half of these 30 bbls. I caught within 3 miles of the shore—we got for 
these mackerel $13 per bbl., and were all mostly No. 1s, our shore mack- 
erel were worth then, I recollect, $20 for ones; in 1874, was in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence for mackerel, and caught 260 bbls. the first trip, and 
220 bbls on the second trip (sea bbls.), the first trip we caught off P. EB. 
Island, and should judge that we caught half of them within 3 
miles of the shore—the second trip we caught 75 bbls. at Madeline 
Island, and the rest at P. E. Island, 6 or 8 miles from the shore, (none 
within 3 miles); in 1875, was in the Bay of St. Lawrence, and caught 
175 bbls, all of which were caught within 3 miles of shore at Madeline 
Islands, and was all our season’s work; in 1876, was at Georges all the 
year. All the above years I have been master ofther schr Charles H. Hil- 
dreth—this year, 1877, I have been master of the schr John S. McQuin, 
and have just returned from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and off our own 
shore, with 107 barrels of mackerel, 3 barrels of which we caught in the 
Bay, after being there a week, trying for mackerel, off Cape George, P. 
E. I., etc., caught 104 of the 107 off the coast of Maine, for which we 
got $9.50, the 3 barrels canght in the Bay sold for $10 per bbl. In the 
winter time, I have been accustomed to go to Grand Manan for herring, 
have been there for last seven winters, with exception of 1873, when I 
was at Newfoundland for herring, generally making two trips to Grand 
Manan. I have always bought my herring, paying the cash at from 50 
to 75 cents per 100—last year, for my two trips, I paid $1,875, for 
Ll averaged about $1000 for each cargo. 

All of the herring brought from Grand Manan by the Americans have 
been bought of the inhabitants, have never known anything to the con- 
trary in my experience. In my trip to Newfoundland, in 1873, 1 was in 
the Membrino Chief, we bought 2200 barrels of herring, for which we 
gave $2200, gold; never knew of any American vessels to get herring 
at Newfoundland, except by buying them of the inbabitants, they being 
always very anxious to sell to you, and the inhabitants depend on this 
traffic with Americans as the principal means of support, and must be 
of incalculable advantage to them. 

HENRY G. COAS. 


GLOUCESTER, Oct. 2d, 1877. 


Personally appeared the above named Henry G. Coas, who subscribed, 
and made oath, that the foregoing statement is true, before me, 
(Seal). ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace, and Special Deputy Collector of Customs. 


No. 247. 


I, Joseph J. Tupper, of Gloucester, Mass., on oath depose and say, that 
I was born in Liverpool, N. S., am thirty-seven years of age, have been 
fishing over twenty years, am now master of schooner Madawaska Maid, 
of Gloucester, and have been master of said vessel for the past nine 
years; have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackereling, with excep- 
tion of the past three years, every season. The past three years have 
been engaged in fishing on the American shore,—seining for mackerel 
during the summers, and in the past seven winters have been to New 
Brunswick for herring. I have now just returned from the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence on a mackerel voyage,—sailing from Gloucester about the 8th 
of August, and seined 30 barrels of pogie slivers for bait, on the coast 


20° F 
4 
. 


3314 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of Maine,—arrived at Prince Edward Island about the 18th of August, 


having tried unsuccessfully at Margaree; and not finding mackerel at ~ 


Prince Edward Island, 1 went to the Magdalen Islands, and tried hard 
for one week, with pleasant weather, catching only 10 barrels altogether. 
Spoke many vessels, both American and British, all telling the same 
story, ‘‘that mackerel was very scarce.” Being dissatisfied with the 
prospect, I sailed for home, with a number of others equally disgusted. 
I omitted to state that previous to going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I 
caught thirty-five barrels of shore mackerel off Block Island, which I 
sold for $24 per barrel; the 10 barrels of Bay mackerel I sold for $13 
per barrel, which is one dollar more than the regular price, as they gave 
me one dollar more for them, in order to secure the shore mackerel. I 
have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackereling thirteen seasons, and 
averaged 300 barrels each year; and I have no hesitation in saying, that 
not one-tenth part were caught within three miles from the shore, except 
those I caught at Magdalen Islands. I did not take a license during the 
years of exclusion. I never knew or heard of any injury to any shore 
boats by the American fleet, and this very trip I have given away to 
these boats bait, which they solicit. I never heard that mackerel clean- 
ings were injurious in any way to the fishery ; on the contrary, we often 
grind it with the other bait. I have known of times when I have been 
solicited by farmers in St. Mary’s Bay to save my offal for them, and 
they would send a boat for it,—they wanting it for their farms as a fer- 
tilizer, and not on account of any injury to the fishery by being thrown 
overboard. The reason I did not take out a license during the years of 
exclusion was because I did not fish within the three-mile limit, and 
therefore was of no value to me. The cost of my late fishing was as 
fallows :— 


Charter of my Vessel, per month, $250 ....... .-0..--.0.-0 seecne $250 
33: Men:at: S50 per month: ss. seks ds waa ice ooe. weiner 390 
Captain's; WAagesidiescsinslacodoe oo eee cern teed Beene eae 75 
Seine and. Boat. Use Olas. s.sccscisi cen weciedicckwst saniwas wast 100 
Outfits; Provisions; Bois; Salt. Baila. .2 322 ces cease cee uence zarce, OOO 
Insurance, Packing and: Inspection «2552 ss. ss5scckswn sae neee ss 100 
$1, 265 
RECEIPTS. 
35 Bbls. Block Island Mackerel, @ $24... ........222.-20- eee $840 
10 “ taken in Gulf of St. Lawrence @ $13. .......-.....00. 130 
| $970 
RECAPITULATION. 

HORE. OF VOVARG 64 been ede cnet es eee Pen ae ee Za-5y. 81,200 
Weceipts from Voyave: aces secs axed waka sees ee err rere 970 
AMOUNLAOSE: DY VOYAGE... <0 vim otiidan chae tenet eras tees sa es $295 


During the winters for the past seven years, I have been to New 
Brunswick for herring, averaging 2 trips during the winter. I have 
uniformly bought my herring, paying the cash, and have paid on an 
average, $2500 a year, with the exception of last winter, when I made 
three trips, and paid them $3600. I usually pay from thirty-five to 
ninety cents per hundred, taking 500 to the barrel. The herring fisher- 
men there have often told me that they could not realize 12 cents per 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3315 
100, if it were not for the American vessels coming for them, and they 
have no other market for them to any extent. 

While I was engaged in the Bay fishing, my highest stock was $4,000 
for any one season, while my lowest was $2,000. On this American 
shore, the highest stock I ever made was $10,000 for any one season, 
and my lowest, including this year, so far, including the 12 barrels 
caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, is $3500. 

I went one trip to Newfoundland for salt herring, in, I think, 1869, 
and also one trip in 1870, both of which trips we bought our herring, 

paying one dollar in gold per barrel. The first voyage, we bought 850 
arrels, and the second voyage, we paid for 2,000 barrels. I never knew 
of any American vessels catching herring in nets or seines at New- 


foundland or New Brunswick. 
| JOSEPH J. TUPPER, 
Master of Schr. Madawaska Maid. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


CouUNTY OF ESSEX, SS. GLOUCESTER, Sept. 3d, 1877 


Then pérsonally appeared the above named Joseph J. Tupper, and 
made oath, that all the above statements by him subscribed, are true, 


before me 
DAVID W. LOW. 
Notary Public. 


No. 248. 


I, Hanson B. Joyce, of Swan’s Island, Maine, on oath, depose and say, 

_ that Iam Master of Schooner Alice, of Portland, have been engaged in 

_ the Fisheries eighteen years, and have been master for the last seven 

years—have been master of the Alice the past two years—have been 

mackereling the whole of this season, first going south on our shore up 
to the 20th June, and caught 900 barrels, and netted $4,000. 

I went into the Bay of St. Lawrence, arriving at Canso, July 10th, 
and fished midway between Cape George and Port Hood, and caught in 
two days 140 bbls. with seine not less than five miles from the shore, 
and one day fished off the north-end of P. E. Island, and caught 30 bbls. 
with seine, catching them not less than seven miles from the shore. We 
then fished between Cape George and P. E. Island, and about the east 
end of the Island, and caught 37 bbls. altogether, one-half of these 37 
with seine, and not any within four miles from the shore. After the pros- 
pect not being favorable enough, we started for home and arrived Aug. 
14th, having been in the Bay about a month, and getting what packed 
out, 188 bbls., which sold for $1,917. We were gone, considering the 
going and coming, a month and a-half, and the owners of the vessel re- 
ceived three hundred and forty-two dollars, which is less than I would 
be willing to charter the vessel for that length of time at this season of 

the year by $200. After packing out from the Bay, went mackereling 

on this (the American) shore, and caught up to this time, 365 barrels, 
which will average at least $9 per barrel, $3,285. Having caught, dur- 
ing the whole season, on this shore, 1,265 barrels, and in the Bay 207, 
(The above are sea-barrels). 

I chartered the schr. G. W. Reed, in the Winter of 1872, and went into 
Grand Manan, or rather Point Lepreau, N. B., for herring, and loaded 
her with 150,000 frozen herring, fur which I paid $375. At this time, 
there were at least 30 sail of American vessels at this place, and in the 

Vicinity, engaged in the same business, and tiey all invariably bought 


- 


- 


3316 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. " 
their herring. I have never known of but four instances in which they | 
attempted to catch them. : 

In the season of 1868 and 1869, I was engaged iu a small vessel of 20 
tons for about a month of each season, in catching herring, on the coast 
of Maine, and caught 250 barrels each season. This business would be 
very extensive, were it profitable enough to induce the inhabitants to 
engage in it, as the herring are very numerous on the shore of Maine 
and Massachusetts, so much so, that they interfere with our mackerel 


fishing considerably. 
HANSON B. JOYCE, 
Master of Schr. Alice. 


GLOUCESTER, Oct. 10, 1877. 


Personally appeared the above named Hanson B. Joyce, master of the 
sehr. Alice, who made oath, that the above statement is true, before me, 
(L. 8). ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace, and Special Deputy Collector of Customs. 


No. 249. 


GLOUCESTER, MAss., Oct. 15, 1877. 


I certify that I have this day personally visited the several firms 
enumerated below and have ascertained from them and their books the 
vessels belonging to Gloucester engaged in the mackerel fishery that 
have arrived from the Bay of St. Lawrence or British waters, during the 
year and up to this date (Oct. 15th, 1877) and the number of barrels of 
mackerel caught by each while in the Bay, or British waters,—where 
they were caught, whether within three miles of the shore,—and the 
amount of money realized from the sale of said mackerel. I also certify 
that the following list of vessels are all the vessels belonging to Glou- 
cester engaged in the mackerel fishery that have as yet returned from 
the Bay of St. Lawrence or British waters. 

ADDISON CARTER, 
Spec. Dep. Collector for District of Gloucester. 


NAMELY. 


Sidney Friend & Bro.—Sch. Hyperion, packed out 2154 barrels; sold 
for $2400—supposed to be caught off East Point, P. E. I. Sch. J. du 
_ Clark packed 2293 barrels; sold for $2250—don’t know where caught. 

Leonard Walen—Sch. Martha C., packed 159 barrels; sold for $1719— 
caught about one-half of them at Madeline Islands, one-third off Mar- 
garee, one-sixth up north. 

Dennis and Ayer—Sch. Mary Fernald, packed out 130 barrels; not 
sold but will average $15; total $1950—don’t know where caught. 

Wonson Brothers—Sch. Madawaska Maid, packed 9 barrels; averaging 
816 per barrel, caught at Madeline Islands. Sch. John S. McQuinn, 
caught no mackerel in the Bay. 

James G. Tarr & Bro.—Sch. Amos Cutter, packed 150 barrels—$1950; 
caught off St. George Bay. Sch. Flash, packed 150 barrels—$2,100; 
caught at Madeline Islands all but 20 barrels, caught at St. George Bay. 

Harvey Knowlton—Sch. Edward A. Horton, packed 186 barrels— 
$2534.50; caught off West Cape; about 20 barrels supposed to be 
caught inside of 3 miles. . 

George Deunis & Co.—Sch. Helen M. Dennis, packed 91 barrels, not 
sold; average $13 per barrel; caught off Madeline Islands. Sch. Fred P. 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3317 


Frye, caught nothing in the Bay. Sch. Seth Stockbridge, 80 barrels, 
averaging $10 per barrel; don’t know where caught. 

Rowe & Jordan—Schr. Ellen M. Crosby, packed 8 barrels, at 310—$89. 
Schr. Golden Hind, packed 70; not sold; where caught not known. 

John Pew & Son—Schr. Hastern Queen, packed 210 barrels—$2,145 ; 
where caught not known. 

Samuel Lane—Schr. Moses Adams, packed 85 barrels, average at $11— 
$935; where caught not known. 

Leighton & Co.—Schr. Falcon, packed 1073? barrels—$1,250.93; caught 
at Madeline Islands—40 barrels at East Point. 
eras Friend—Schr. William S. Baker, packed 10 barrels, at $11— 

10. 

McKenzie, Hardy & Co.—Schr. Vidette, packed 133 barrels—$1,629.25; 
caught principally at Madeline Islands. 

D.C. & H. Babson—Schr. Marion Grimes, packed 137 barrels—$1,635; 
caught at Madeline Islands. 

Clark & Somes—Schr. Frederic Gerring, Jr., packed 343 barrels— 
$3,531; don’t know where caught—vessel is away. 

Benj. Haskell & Son—Schr. Colorado, pickled 85 barrels—$860; caught 
off Rustico—about quarter within 3 miles of shore. 

James Mansfield & Son—Schr. William A. Pew, packed 140 barrels— 
$1,800.75; not known where caught—vessel out. 

John H. Gale—Schr. Alice M. Lewis, packed out 1994 barrels—sold 
for $2,476; seined 10 miles off the Island. 

I certify that the foregoing statement is true. 

ADDISON CARTER, 
Spec. Dy. Collector. 


James G. Tarr & Bro.—Schr. Davy Crocket, Capt. Charles Osier, will 
pack out 218 barrels mackerel, caught one-half at Madeline Islands, and 
one-half off Prince Edward Island; did not catch one-eighth of whole 
amount within the three-mile limit. The foregoing is the statement of 
Capt. Charles Osier. (Arrived the 16th Oct., 1877.) 

Pettingell & Cunningham—Schr. David M. Hilton, Capt. Daniels, 
with 200 sea-barrels of mackerel, from the Bay; caught 90 barrels at 
Madeline Islands, and 110 barrels off Prince Edward Island; not more 
than 50 barrels of the whole were caught within three miles of the 
shore. The foregoing is a statement of Capt. Daniels. 

Cunningham & Thompson—Schr. Giendolen, Capt. William T. Gray, 
arrived from Bay of St. Lawrence on the 16th inst. Packed 225 bar- 
rels mackerel, one-third of which were number ones, the remainder num- 
ber twos. About one-half were caught at Madeline Islands, the re- 
mainder off and around P. E. Island; not more than one-eighth were 
caught within the three-mile limit. This is the statement of Mr. Thomp- 
son, of the above firm. 

Henry Friend, owner—Schr. David J. Adams, Capt. Danl. Rackliff, 
from Bay of St. Lawrence, arrived on the 18th inst. (having been in the 
Bay over two months), with 50 barrels of mackerel,—one-third ones, and 
the rest twos; 40 barrels were caught around P. E. Island, and 10 bar- 
om caught near Port Hood; nearly all caught within three miles of the 
shore. 

Custom HovusE, GLOUCESTER, Oct. 19, 1877. 

I certify that the foregoing statement concerning schooners David _ 
Crockett, David M. Hilton, Gwendolen, and David J. Adams, have been 
reported to me as true, by the master or owner of the said vessel; and 
that these, together with a former certified list, sent to Capt. F. J. Babson 


* 
> 


3318 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


ot 


at Halifax, are all the vessels belonging to Gloucester that have arrived | 


from the Bay of St. Lawrence with mackerel this season, up to the even- 
ing of Oct. 19, 1877. 
(L. 8.) ADDISON CARTER. 
Dy. Collector. 
No. 250. 


I, Joseph McLean, a naturalized citizen of the United States, now 


residing at Cape Negro, in the Province of Nova Scotia, being duly | 


sworn, do depose and say, that I am the Captain of the schooner Cham- 


pion, of Gloucester, in the State of Massachusetts, and that I have been | 


engaged in fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence since the | 


17th of August, 1877; and I came out of the Gulf the 20th of October. 
That during that time, my vessel took seventy sea-barrels of mackerel ; 
that I came into the Harbour of Halifax last evening for shelter, and 
expect to leave thismorning. As nearly as I can learn, the other vessels 
in the Bay did not average more than half a trip, and the mackerel fish- 
ery in the Gulf for the present year, as regards the United States, has 
been a complete failure. I have heard of two vessels only, which took 
three hundred barrels—the George S. Low, and the Etta Gott. I also 
heard that the Herbert M. Rogers took two hundred, and the Ellen M. 
Crosby six barrels—the William S. Baker, three barrels. All these 
which I have named have left the Bay, except the Etta Gott. 
JOSEPH McLEAN. 


Sworn at Halifax, this 23d day of October, A. D., 1877, before me, 
L. W. DESBARRES. 
Notary Public. 
No. 251. 


Statement of the number of barrels of mackerel inspected by A. E. 
Goodwin, Deputy Inspector of Fish, Port of Newburyport, Mass., dur- 
ing the years 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, and 1870,— 


| American | British 
waters. waters. 
Date. | Lous S 
D2 & 2 
a2 ae 
| Bs | £3 
_ te tae a 
' 
BOGS Preece cat enews some cee aes Tee See te ete ee ee 1, 500 5, 200 
RSOG Sek as see cosine tae Set nc aid oe ae eee in hee a iets See 2, 045 5, 405 
BOG ooo ae cocacs Sater c dee eee eee ee ee a on Es a OL, 3, 918 3, 694 
DL RRC te en eee yok acer a Dn eae NL ie Sie SER Ete Eee arr TG 2, 561 1, 969 
BROD Te a seeecacedtt sag ccs cca samen aaa ee nae tod eee aa: Pee a eee eae 3, 272 = 
ESI erate cic Susie ve ctajseisscioba swish asian ae alow seas aoe a eee eee ae 4, 262 1, 
| , 004 


z 
4 
8 


A. E. GOODWIN. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


CouNTY oF EssEx, SS. 
Before me, E. F. Bartlett, a Notary Public, within and for said County 


whom I believe to be a man of truth and veracity, and subscribed the 


l 4 


of Essex, duly commismissioned and qualified, personally came the above | — 
named A. E, Goodwin, well known to me as an Inspector of Fish, and | — 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3319 


foregoing statement, and made oath that the same was true and correct 
to his best knowledge and belief. 
Witness my hand and Notarial Seal at Newburyport, in said County 
of Essex, this Twenty-Fourth day of September, A. D., 1877. 
[L. 8.] E. F. BARTLETT, 
Notary Public. 
No. 252. 


Statement of the Number of Barrels of Mackerel Inspected by George 
D. Thurlow, Inspector of Fish, for the Port of Newburyport, Mass., dur- 
ing the years 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876: . 


American | British 
waters. waters. 
Date. S ) 
Pa} Ps 4 
= 2? 32 
EP ay 
Z a 
BE ascsreccavcceesaccecnee cece sancendasaase cas ccebacsivaed se te keeekuanescarens 948 2,130 
DR ik amaretecrite ce dee mece ates be cclsos oes ee csibat areas neste lesa scedenecedeamads 2, 687 2, 371 
BH ier EE ABA ESI A Ss SS HST ee ee eee ee a ncnG ar ee ear ne 1, 347 843 
De Se ceeroccn cas cases a caccuedb caren see cere cceds cose Ueeseedest ceeues teas bes S003 125s -ccea 
6, 987 5, 344 


GEORGE D. THURLOW. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


CounTy OF ESSEX, SS. 


Before me, E. F. Bartlett, Notary Public, duly commissioned and 
qualified, personally appeared the above named George D. Thurlow, per- 
sonally known to be an inspector of fish, and whom I believe to be a 
man of truth and veracity, and made oath that the foregoing statement 
im subscribed was true and correct, to his best knowledge and 

ief. 
- Witness my hand and Notarial Seal, this Twenty-Fourth day of Sep- 
tember, A. D., 1877. 
(L. 8S.) E. F. BARTLETT. 
o Notary Public. 
No. 253. 


The following is a statement of the number of barrels of herring 
bought by the several firms in Gloucester during the year 1876; said 
herring having been caught by the inhabitants on the shores of the 
United Stats :— 


Number of Barrels. Name of Firm. 
15, 733 D. C. & H. Babson. 
7, 500 Gloucester Fish Co. 
450 James H. Stetson. 
2, 000 Geo. P. Trigg & Co. 
: 2, 500 Geo. Perkins. 
| 1, 500 Simon Merchant. 
| 6, 000 Proctor, Trask & Co., 
| a “+ 1,492 John Pew & Son. 
700 Clark & Somes. 
: 37, 975 


“S 


»: — 
; : 


— 


3320 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


GLOUCESTER, Oct. 15, 1877. 
I certify that the above figures are a true statement of the firms above 
enumerated, as stated to me by them. 
BENJ. F. COOK, 


Inspector of Cu.toms. 
No. 254. 
AUGUST 7, 1877. 
Arrived at Gloucester British schooner Harriet, Capt. E. R. Perry, 
from Shelburne, N. S. 


British schooner Gertie, from Lockeport, N.S., arrived May 5th and 


July 11th, 1877. 

British schooner Avon, from fishing, arrived May 24th, June 11th, 
and July 23rd, 1877. 

I certify that the British schooner Harriet and Gertie arrived at this 
Port as above stated, and fitted for seining. Also, that the schooner 
(British) Avon, has been engaged in fishing on this coast, and selling 
the fish at this place since May 5th, 1877. 

BENJ. F. BLATCHFORD, 
Boarding Officer, Gloucester, Mass. 


No. 255. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 10, 1877. 


J, Thomas E. Roberts, Master of the British schooner M. HE. McLean, 
on oath do depose and say that I was born in Guysborough, Nova 
Scotia, am 31 years of age, have been engaged in freighting from Nova 
Scotia to Boston 4 years. I have brought up this trip 620 bbls of 
mackerel, 503 of these are English mackerel. I get 50 cents per barrel 
freight from Canso to Boston. 

Last trip before this, I bought herring at 50 cents per barrel. I know 
that the expense on a barrel of mackerel or herring brought by steamer 
is at least one dollar per barrel to Gloucester. 1 bave brought in the 
last four years 700 barrels of American mackerel. The freight has been 
about the same. 

It is the universal fact, that one dollar is no more than a fair freight. 


I was part owner, and master of the schr. Dusky Lake, of Canso. I ~ 


was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackereling in 1869—got 180 bbls. in 
four weeks; and not doing so well as I ought to, I abandoned this fish- 
ery, and went onto the ocean Banks for fish. I have never been mack- 


ereling since, but I now go freighting. 
THOMAS ROBERTS. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


CounTY oF Essex, SS. GLOUCESTER, Sept. 10th, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named Thomas Roberts, and 
made oath that the above statements by him subscribed are true, 
before me, 

DAVID W. LOW, 
Notary Public. 
No. 256. 


I, J. Warren Wonson, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, State of 
Massachusetts, on oath, depose and say, that I was part owner and 
agent of schr. Tragabigzanda, of Gloucester, of which vessel William 
Molloy was master, that in the season of 1876 said vessel made only one 
trip to the Grand Banks for cod-fish, the first trip said vessel was fitted 
for sea March 21st, 1876, and returned Aug. 23rd, 1876, having been 


* || 


. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


absent 4 months and 28 days. 
accounted for as follows :— 


65,300 lbs Large Cod, @ 24c $1, 632. 50 
7,440 “ Small * @1}4 95. 00 
110 Gals. Oil @ 45 49. 50 
108 « & @ 50 54. 00 
7 | a @ 40 8. 00 
Fish sold by master, 239. 68 
620 lbs, Flitched Halibut, @ 2c., 12. 40 
$2, 091. 08 
Less Stock Expenses, 296. 31 
2)1, 794. 77 
Vessels, 897. 385 
Crew, 897. 384 


Stock Expenses as follows :— 
Bait, ; 
Ice, 
Water, 
Port Charges, 
Towing, 
6 Barrels, 


12)897.38 
Crew’s Share, 


$1, 794. 7 


$230.20 
11,60 
3.20 
38.81 
8.00 
4.50 


296.31 


74.78 each for 4 month and 28 days. 


3321 


Said vessel’s trip was weighed off, and 


I further depose, and say, that on her second trip, she went to the 


Western Bank and Cape Sable. 


Sailed on or about the 28th day of 


August, and returned Nov. 24th—absent about 2 months and 26 days. 


She weighed off as follows :— 
21,743 lbs Large Cod, @ 3 ¢ 
3,625 “ Small “ @14 
Fish sold by Master in Prospect, 
220 Gals. Slivers, @ 15c., 


Stock Expenses, 


Stock Expenses as follows :— 


Custom House, 
Pilot, 
Telegram, 
Towing, 


$652.29 
54.37 
280.50 
33.00 


$1,020.16 
256.43 


2)763.73 
381.865 
381.865 


$256. 43 


Crew’s Share, (12 men), for 2 months and 26 days, $31.82. 


3322 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I further depose and say, that said schr. Tragabigzanda did not pay her _ 


running expenses during the year 1876 by Two Thousand dollars. 

That said Molloy was discharged from our employ as being entirely 
untrustworthy, and to the best of my belief, is now a resident‘of New- 
foundland, where be came from. 

In presence of CYRUS STORY.) J. WARREN WONSON. 


I, Joseph Adams, a resident of Gloucester, County of Essex, State 


of Massachusetts, on oath depose and say, that I was one of the crew 


of schr. Tragabigzanda, of Gloucester, in 1876, on her second trip to the 
Banks. That we fished on the Western Banks and off Cape Sable, and 
that said schooner did not go near Newfoundland. All her fresh bait 
having been bought at Shelburne and Prospect, Nova Scotia. 


his 
JOSEPH x ADAMS. 


mark. 


(In presence of FRANK E. SMOTHER & CYRUS STORY.) 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, COMMONWEALTH OF MAS.- 
SACHUSETTS. 


COUNTY OF ESSEX SS. CITY OF GLOUCESTER. 


Know all men by these present,—that on this twentieth day of Octo- 
ber, A. D., 1877, before me, Cyrus Story, a Notary Public, duly appointed 
and sworn in and for the County of Essex, aforesaid, personally appeared 
J. Warren Wonson and Joseph Adams, before named, who made oath 
to the truth of the foregoing statements by them signed. In witness 
whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal, the 
day and year last above written. 

(L. 8.) CYRUS STORY, 

Notary Public. 
No. 257. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 3, 1877. 


I, Charles Martin, Master of the schr Martha C., of Gloucester, do on 
oath depose and say, that I was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, am 40 
years of age, have been engaged in the fisheries for 30 years. I have 
just returned from a trip to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mackerel. I 
commenced to fit my vessel for this trip July 3rd, 1877, and sailed from 
Gloucester the 9th, arrived in the Bay on the 17th; took my bait on 
the coast of Maine. Took my first mackerel in Antigonish Bay, about 


15 barrels on the hook, within three miles of the shore. We fished | 


between Cape George and East Point, we went around Prince Edward 
Island, could not find any mackerel; tried in the middle of the Bay, 
between Cape George and East Point again; caught 80 barrels on the 
hook, from six to eight miles from shore. Afterward went to Margaree 
and Chittigong; took 80 barrels there, close into the shore. This was 
all we got. We then cruised all around the Island and up off Cape 
North, and did not find any mackerel. We then went to Pirate Cove 
and refitted, and then went into the Bay again, and found no mackerel, 
neither could I find any vessel that had seen any. I got entirely dis- 
couraged and left the Bay, and came up on the Nova Scotia shore and 
found no prospect of mackerel there, and came home; found no vessels 
doing anything. I arrived home the 1st of September. I packed out 
40 barrels number ones, and 110 barrels of number twos, and 10 bar- 
rels threes. My mackerel were worth $1,920.00. 


all 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3323 


My vessel is a new, first-class one, 79 tons. 
I carried a seine-boat and seine. 
The charter of my vessel is worth $250 per month, $500 00 


Wages of 14 men, at $30 per month, 840 00 
Captain’s wages, two months, 140 00 
Outfits, 600 00 
Packing and inspection, 120 00 
Insurance, 100 00 
Use of seine and boat, 150 00 

Cost of trip, $2,450 00 
Receipts—160 barrels mackerel, at $12, $1,920 00 

Loss, . $530 00 


I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 14 seasons for mackerel. I 
was there in 1875, and brought home 70 barrels; was gone over two 
months. The mackerel fishery in the bay is a failure, compared with 
former years. The mackerel do not stay there as formerly. I do think 
that the large amount of bait, thrown by American vessels, formerly 
kept the mackerel in the Bay. There is no feed at all for the mackerel 
in the Bay now. I have seen no brit or shrimp there this year. Some of 
the mackerel I took had small smelt in them; this is unusual. I never 


saw any smelt in mackerel in the Bay before. I have never caught 


many mackerel inshore, except at the Magdalen Islands. I have caught 
more inshore this trip than any I have been. My best judgment, from 
my experience, as fair and candid, is, that not more than one-sixth of 
the mackerel taken by American vessels, are taken within three miles 
of the shore. 

I have taken many whole trips without going inside of five miles. 
When a large fleet of vessels are throwing bait, they can keep the mack- 
erel off shore five miles without any trouble. 

I have trans-shipped my fare of mackerel once, from Canso. The ex- 
pense, landed in Gloucester, was one dollar per barrel. I never heard 
of boats being injured, nor any complaint whatever. Never heard or 
knew of mackerel gurry hurting the fisheries ; in dressing mackerel the 
fish will follow the vessel to get the gurry thrown over. 

I have seined off the American shore for mackerel two seasons. The 


American shore mackerel are much better than the Bay mackerel in 


quality and price. 

Ihave stocked as high as $7,000 in one season in the Bay, eight years 
ago. 

My lowest stock for one season in the Bay was $600. 

An American vessel, as they are now fitted, must stock $5,000 in the 
Bay, to pay her bills. I have been the two last winters to Newfoundland 
for herring. Bought all my herring of the people on shore. Paid on an 
average eight shillings per barrel, or $1.60; paid for some $2, There is 
no way that the people there can realize so much for their herring as 
this sale to American vessels. The American trade there for herring 
- the chief support of the people, and is a source of great profit to 
them. 

I have been master of the schooners Quickstep, Belvidere, Seaman’s 
Pride, Enterprise, D. A. Bunham, Fred. Gerring, Charlotte Augusta, Mary 
L. Daniels, Joseph Chandler, Martha C. 

CHARLES MARTIN. 


3324 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


‘CoUNTY OF ESSEX, SS. GLOUCESTER, Sept. 3d, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named Charles Martin, and made 
oath, that all the statements by him above made, are true to the best of 
his knowledge and belief, before me, 

DAVID W. LOW. 


(L. 8.) Notary Public. 
No. 258. 


I, William Parsons, 2nd, senior member of the firm of William Par. | 


sons 2nd & Co., on oath depose and say, that I am part owner and fitter, 
with others of said firm, of the schooner Pescadore (Pescador); that I 
have examined the books of said firm and find that James Howlett made 
two trips in said schooner, in the year 1867; that said schooner packed 
out 4633 barrels of mackerel; that the shares of said vessel was $2,701; 
that said Howlett’s shares was $224.37. 

I further depose and say that 1 have also examined the books of said 
firm in regard to Daniel McPhee, in schooner Messina, and tind his name 
as one of the crew, in 1865 only, he not having been in her in 1863. 
Said schooner packed out in 1865, when said McPhee was in her, two 
hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel (260 bbls.), his share amounting 
to $98.21; the vessels’ share was $1,745.19. 

WM. PARSONS 2np. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


‘COUNTY OF ESSEX SS. - . GLOUCESTER, Sept. 14, 1877. 
Subscribed and sworn to by above named William Parsons 2nd, 
before me, 
DAVID W. LOW, 
(L. 8.) Notary Public. 


No. 259. 


I, Solomon Jacobs, of Gloucester, Mass., on oath, depose and say, that 
I am Master of the schr. Moses Adams, of Gloucester, and have just 
-arrived from a mackerel voyage to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, having 
caught 190 bbls. of mackerel on the trip, one-third of them we caught 
on Bank Orphan, the rest at different places, and about 20 barrels 
within the three mile limit. I am very sure that the number caught 
within three mile limit will not exceed 25 barrels. I should judge that 
150 of the 190 bbls. are number ones, as they are good-sized mackerel, 
having caught the most of them well up north in the Gulf—have not 
yet sold, but expect to get $16 for 1's, $10.50, and $7.00 for them. I 
have been two months on the trip. 

The cost of the trip is ds follows :— 


Charter, @ $500 per Month............ $1, 000 
PROVISIONS). lig 8s Seocwe, natures suc cia teetons 300 
Barrels, Inspection, &c., @ $1.75 ....... 330 
Captain’s Commissions, @ 4.00 per cwt. 106 

$1, 736. 00 
Owners: Ptothtn. 45 ssuseo Sys Neo Scenes 1, 278. 25 


$457.75 lost by the voyage. 


~ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3325. 


150 bbis No. 1s @ $16.00..... $2, 400. 00 
2 6 6% Ie @ 10,50..... 262. 50 
$2, 662. 50 

Captain’s Commissions ...... 106. 00 
. $2, 556. 50 
ey at A o£ Ls Re aa avers) pat eeee 
BAWNOr Ss SUAIC ars sect ce +s $1, 278. 25 


This is my first trip to the Bay for mackereling, and I think it will be 
the last, and would have done a great deal better on our own shore. I 
have, for the five years previous, fished on our own shore, and always 
done a great deal better than I have this year. In the year 1872, I was 
master of the sch’r Sabine, and fished off this shore, starting late in the 
season, and caught 650 bbls., which sold for $18 and $20 per barrel; 
and in 1873, I was master of the schooner 8S. R. Lane, of Gloucester, 
and caught 1,600 barrels off this shore (the American); in 1874, I was 
master of same vessel, and caught 1,200 barrels, averaging $10 a barrel; 
in 1875, I was master of same vessel, and caught 1,800 barrels of mack- 
erel off the American shore, and stocked $11,000. 

I would state that previous to going into the Bay this year, I was 


‘mackereling on this shore, and caught 800 bbls., for which we stocked 


$5,200. 
SOLOMON JACOBS, 
Master of Schr. Moses Adams. 


Custom HOUSE, GLOUCESTER, 
Oct. 4th, 1877. 
Personally appeared the above named Solomon Jacobs, master of 
schr. Moses Adams, who subscribed, and made oath, that the above 
statement is true, before me, 
ADDISON CARTER, 
Special Deputy Collector and Justice of the Peace. 


No. 260. 


I, Albian K. Pierce of Gloucester, Mass., on oath depose and say that 
Iam master of schooner Wm. S. Baker of Gloucester, and have been 
engaged in mackereling during this season, and fished off the American 
shore the first two months of the season, and caught 350 barrels, by 
which we stocked $1,950. From dispatches and favorable reports I 
was induced to go to the Bay of St. Lawrence, and sailed for Bay 
Chaleur the 18th July, and was in the Bay 14 days, and tried for mack- 
erel all the way from P. E. Island to Gaspe and other places, inshore 
and out, and canght three barrels only. I then came home and fished 
on the coost of Maine, and caught 160 barrels at that place, from which 
the ne, stock amounted to $1,455. I consider in my trip to the Bay 
this year I lost $2,000. Last year, 1876 I was master of the same ves- 
sel, and fished on the American coast, and caught 1,420 barrels, and 
stocked $11,000 net. In 1875 I was master of the same vessel. I fished 
on this shore and landed 1,000 barrels of mackerel up to middle of July ;. 
andon the 16th July we started for the Bay and tried hard at P. E, 
Island and Madeline Islands for ten days. but finding no mackerel of any 
consequence, we started for home, having caught nine barrels of No. 2’s_ 


3326 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


during all the time in the Bay. We then fished on the American shore _ 


and caught 600 barrels, making 1,600 barrels of good mackerel caught 
on this shore during the year, from which we stocked $13,300. In 1874 
I was master of the same vessel, and fished for mackerel during the 
season on this (the American) shore, and caught over 1,100 barrels, 
from which we stocked $9,000. Previous to 1874, I had been in the 
habit of going to the Bay mackereling, and some years we did well and 
others poorly. Over one-half of all the mackerel caught there these 
years were caught off Madeline Islands, and, excepting at Madeline 
Islands, not one-tenth part were caught within the three-mile limit. 

I have been employed during the winter for the past seven years in 
going to Newfoundland after herring, and for the past three winters I 
loaded ten vessels at that place. I hired the inhabitants to fish for us, 
and left with the inhabitants $24,000, for 20,300 barrels of herring, 
loaded into the ten vessels which I superintended. During the last two 
winters the owners of this enterprise have lost $8,000 by the prosecu- 
tion of this business. Previous to the last three winters Il was accus- 
tomed to go there for herring for myself alone, and was there four 
winters in succession, and always got a cargo, paying $1 per barrel for 
them. This business is very extensive and of great importance to the 
inhabitants. I have seen at one time over twenty sail of American 
vessels there buy herring, and all of them buy their herring; and 
have never known an American vessel to catch their herring at this 


place, always invariably buying them of the inhabitants. At Boone © 


Bay, the inhabitants rely almost entirely upon this trade with our ves- 
sels, and without which they would be very destitute. In the winter of 
1876, when I was there, the herring were very scarce,—almost a failure, 
—and occasioned great destitution and suffering among the inhabitants 
of Boone Bay; so much so, that I was obliged to give away five barrels 
of flour to them,—and Mr. Curling, minister at that place, bought of 
me as many more, and other stores, which he distributed among the 


poor people. 
ALBION K. PIERCE. 


GLOUCESTER, Oct. 5, 1877. 


Personally appeared the above named Albion K. Pierce, who made 
oath that the above statement, by him subscribed, is true, before me. 
ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace, Spec.“ Dep. Collector of District of Gloucester. 


No. 2€0 A. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 17, 1877. 


‘ I, William Elwell, master of the schr. Jsabella, born in Gloucester, 
have been engaged in the fisheries 20 years. I have been in the Gult 
of St. Lawrence 12 seasons for mackerel. My best stock in the Bay was 
$2000, my poorest $1200. I left. off going there 8 years ago because I 
could do so much better on the American coast. I have fished for mack- 
erel on the American coast the past 8 years—5 years using a seine. 
My best stock mackereling on the American coast was $7,500 for 5 
months fishing. : 

My poorest stock in any season was $4,500. 

When in the Gulf of St. Lawrence I took the most of my mackerel at 
the Magdalens. The American fleet usually fish the most there. I did 
not get more than one barrel in ten inside of three miles. Mackerel in 
the Bay when in large bodies or masses are most always off shore from 


. r 
i. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3327 


6 to 20 miles, and when we find them there we get large decks of them. 
The mackerel on the American coast are from the rocks to thirty miles 
off. 

I consider the American fishermen are not at all compensated. by free 
fishing within three miles of the British coasts in lieu of the imposed 
duty of $2 per barrel on British mackerel. 

WILLIAM ELWELL. 
GLOUCESTER, MAss., 
ESsEX, 8. 8., Sept. 17, 1877. 


Personally appeared the above named Wm. Elwell, who subscribed to 
and made oath that the foregoing statement was true before me. 
(L. 8.) ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace, and Special Deputy Collector 
of Customs, for District of Gloucester. 


No. 261. 


I, Peter Sinclair, master and owner of the American schooner C. B. 
Manning, was born in the Orkney Islands, am 58 years of age, and have 
been engaged in the fisheries nearly 50 years. I am now seining off the 
American shore for mackerel. 

I have been seven seasons mackereling in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 
IT have not been there since 1873. The highest stock I ever made in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence mackereling was $7,000.00 (1859.) My poorest 
year I stocked $150.00 (one hundred and fifty dollars), gone six weeks ; 
this was in 1860. Any American vessel, over 50 tons, with 12 or 14 men, 
must stock at least $5,000 for a full season’s work in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence mackereling, to pay her bills. Of all the mackerel I have taken in 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, not more than one-third were taken within 
three miles of the shore, including the Magdalen Islands; and the larger 
the fleet of vessels in the Bay, throwing bait, the longer the mackerel 
will stop in one place. The action of the mackerel is largely influenced 
by the movements of the fleet. Four years ago, when I was in the Bay, 
the mackerel fishery there was a partial failure, and since then the 
American shore mackereling has been much more successful and profit- 
able. 

For the last six years the American shore mackerel have been of much 
aaa quality, and brought better prices than Bay mackerel of the same 

rand, 

The mackerel feed on shrimp and a red seed that floats on the water ; 
wherever we find them we usually find mackerel. This food is generally 
more plenty on the American coast than in the Gulf, and I have found 
mackerel with young mackerel inside of them, having eaten them for 
food. 

I never knew that throwing over mackerel cleanings would hurt the 
live mackerel; on the contrary, I have always noticed the mackerel to fol- 
low the vessel while we were dressing, and eat all we threw overboard. 1 
never knew of any American vessels interfering with the shore boats in 
any way, except in cases where the boats got blowed off, to pick them up 
and tow them in, and in some cases to take men from the bottom of the 
boats that had been upset, and save their lives; and I have often given 
the boat fishermen bait and also lines and hooks. Ido not consider the 
privilege to fish inshore of any real value whatever, and the duties re- 
mitted on Canadian fish and mackerel is vastly in excess of compensa- 
tion for what is of little value to our fishermen. The only advantage 
gained by the inshore concession is security from annoyance, heretofore 


3328 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


practiced by the Canadian marine force, the object of seizure being stimu- _ 


Jated by one-half of the prize money being divided among the crews of 
the cutters. The inshore fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for cod 
and halibut is a matter belonging to the past. No American fisherman 
now fishes inshore for either. I have fished out of Gloucester for cod 
and halibut 27 seasons, and I never took either fish inside of three miles 
of the English shore. The American fishery now is absolutely and purely 
a deep-sea fishery for cod and halibut. 

The first fresh bait bought in Newfoundland by American fishermen 
was about 22 years ago, and brought to Gloucester to bait the Georges 
men. It is about 8 or 9 years since the Grand Bankers and Western 
Bankers began to buy bait at Newfoundland ; for centuries before they 
had used salt bait and the other bait and refused fish taken on the 
Banks; they also used to buy bait at St. Peirre. Now they go up For- 


tune Bay for it; they pay cash for this bait. It costs $150 to a vessel — 


for a Grand Bank fare. The people there have got well off by the sale of 
this bait; they are rich, and every dollar left there by American vessels 
- is clear gain to them, as there is no other use or market where they would 
use these herring they sell to American vessels. 

I have owned and run more than thirty vessels, and in the different 
branches of the fisheries pursued by American fishermen, I have had as 
much experience as any person now living; and I know the value of 
the different fisheries by actual experience in practical fishing, in each 
department, and the scale of values by actual sales. In the herring 
trade for the first eleven years, it was profitable to those engaged in it, 
but for the past eleven years there has been more lost than gained, on 
a fair average. 

I have lost myself $1,500 on one voyage, and $1,100 on another. I 
never made over one thousand dollarson any one herring voyage. 1 have 
known vessel after vessel to throw overboard her cargo of herring in the 
harbor of Gloucester, and to have given them away in New York for 


manure. 
PETER SINCLAIR. 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


CouNTY OF ESSEX 8s. GLOUCESTER, Sept. 3, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named Peter Sinclair, and made 
oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true, before 
me, 

DAVID W. LOW, 
(Eh 8;) Notary Public. 
No. 262. 


GLOUCESTER, September 1, 1877. 


I, Wm. T. Rowe, Master of the schr. B.D. Haskins, of Gloucester, do, 
on oath, depose and say, that I was born in Gloucester, am 39 years of 
age, have been engaged in the fisheries 25 years. 

[ have just returned from a trip to Block Island, and the last week, 
otf Monhegan, Maine. 

The mackerel taken off Block Island are very large and fat, taking 90 
mackerel to a barrel. We set our seine once off Monhegan, and took 20 
barrels No. 1s and 2s, We came home to refit and are going immedi-- 
ately to the Eastern shore. There is now a great body of mackerel there, 
from close into thé rocks to 25 miles off. The Maud Muller took 230 
bbls in her seine at one haul. The Fairy Queen, of Portland, took 60 


_ 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3329 


bbls. at one haul. The Volunteer took 100 barrels in 3 hauls. All the 
vessels the day we left, took all the way from 20 to 60 bbls. The Cor- 
poral Trim, of Swan’s Island, is in with 210 barrels No. 1 and 2 mackerel, 
taken on the hook. She took from 10 to 15 barrels each day. This is 
the best prospect we have had this year, and it indicates a good fall 
catch on our shores. The owners of some of the vessels now in the Bay 
of St. Lawrence have sent by telegraph for them to come home and go 
for these shore mackerel. I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 7 
seasons, mackereling. The early trips in the Bay the mackerel were 
taken offshore, later in the Fall the mackerel were inshore. 

In 1851, we took all our mackerel inshore, that ‘is, from one mile to 
ten; in 1854, we never took a mackerel within ten miles of the shore; 
have not been there since 1854. I have been shore seining for mackerel 
since, every season. I have shared $241 to a share in six weeks’ mack- 
ereling in the Bay of St. Lawrence; I have shared $241 to a share in 
one day’s fishing on our own shores. The average difference in the two 
mackerel fisheries is, as two dollars for the Bay to five dollars for our 
own shores. I have been master of the schr. Mary Elizabeth, 4 years; 
Bloomfield, 2 years: David Osier, 2 years: Farragut, 5 years; Belle, 2 
years; Elihu Burritt, 1 year; A. M. Dodd, 1 year; B. D. Haskins, 1 
year. 

; WILLIAM T. ROWE. 
GLOUCESTER, Sept. 1, 1877. 


Sworn and subscribed before me, 
(L. 8.) ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace, and Deputy Collector of Port of Gloucester. 


No. 263. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 29, 1877. 


I, Oliver F. Howard, master of the late schooner Coll Ellsworth, of 
Gloucester, do on oath depose and say that I was born in Deer Isle, 
Maine, am 53 years of age, have been engaged in the fisheries 32 years. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 28 seasons mackereling, and 
am thoroughly acquainted with all the fisheries. The highest stock I 
ever made in the Bay mackereling was $5,000, and my lowest stock was 
$1400, and an American vessel must stock certainly $4,500 in the Bay 
mackerel fishery to pay her bills. I have mostly fished for mackerel off 
the Magdalen Islands, and of all the mackerel I have taken in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence, not one-fourth were taken within 3 miles. I have never 
seen any interference with the shore boats, never heard any complaints 
of throwing over offal or mackerel gibs. My experience in this respect 
is that the mackerel cleanings is first-rate food for codfish, as they swarm 
around the vessel and eat it voraciously. As master and owner of my 
own vessel I have not made any money in the Bay mackereling. I have 
made a living and that is all. I should say that a fair average during 
the last 20 years would be 300 sail of American vessels in the Gulf, and 
with a full knowledge of the facts, I should say that 300 barrels is a 
full average catch for each vessel. I have been in the herring business 
15 seasons. Invariably the herring are bought from the British fisher- 
men and paid for in cash. The only demand for these herring is from 
Americans or for the American market, or for bait. Without this mar- 
ket the herring would be entirely useless to the British people. 

I know that this herring trade has been of great advantage to the 
inhabitants of the English coasts. The Winter trade supplies them with 


209 F 


3330 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the only fishing they have at that season, and they would have no 
other employment if it were not for the herring trade. The American 
cod and halibut fishery is entirely a deep sea fishery, and there is no 
fish of this kind taken less than 12 miles from the shore, and most all 
of them are taken on the ocean banks. I have just returned from Galf 
of St. Lawrence in the yacht America. The prospect there is not good 
for a large catch of mackerel. Last year I was in the Bay of St. Law- 
rence mackereling, and it was the poorest year I had ever known there. 
I observed a great many Albecores, sometimes called Baracoutas and 
Benitos, which are deadly foes to the mackerel, driving them away from 
every locality wheré these fish are found. In coming along the British 
coast and the American shores in the yacht America, we saw immense 
quantities of these fish, and in my opinion the presence of these fish is 
fatal to the mackerel fishery while they remain in any locality. 

The albecore is a fish about 3 feet long, formed like a shark with a 
large fin erect on the back. They are extremely voracious and very 
smart I have not seen any before for 8 years, and their presence is to 


my mind the reason of the mackerel being so scarce in the Gulf and | 


along the British and American shores. The vessels I have commanded 
areas follows: Pocahontas, E. P. Howard, C. C. Davis, Typhoon, Catalina, 
Coll Ellsworth. 
OLIVER F. HOWARD, 
Master Schooner Coll Ellsworth. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 29, 1877. 
CouUNTY OF ESSEX, SS. 

Then personally appeared the above-named Oliver F. Howard, and 
made oath that the above statements by him subscribed are true, to the 
best of his knowledge and belief, before me, 

DAVID W. LOW, Notary Public. 


No. 264. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 25, 1877. 


I, Joseph W. Collins, master of the American schr. Howard, of Glou- 
cester, on oath do depose and say :—That I was born in Islesboro, Maine, 
38 years of age, have been engaged in the fisheries 28 years. I have 
just returned from a fishing voyage to the Western Banks. Have fished 
nearly every year partially on the Grand and Western Banks, since 1864. 
Have purchased bait at Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. There are two 
modes of keeping fish taken on these Banks: One method is the use of 
ice for a fresh halibut trip; the other we use salt for a fresh fish trip, we 
carry some bait from home. We also take a few barrels of fresh herring 
from Nova Scotia and after the first set of our trawls we use the refuse 
fish taken on our trawls for bait for halibut, which is all sufficient for the | 
purpose. I never caught any bait inshore and I never knew an Ameri- 


can vessel to get bait there other than by purchase. 


The average amount of fresh bait taken at Nova Scotia is about 4 bar- 
rels of herring to each vessel for a fresh trip for halibut. For a salt 
trip for codfish we buy bait along the coast of Nova Scotia and at New- | 
foundland. From 20 to 40 barrels baiting each on the long summer trips | 
to the Grand Banks. We bait from 3 to 4 times usually at Newfound- 
land, averaging about 200 dollars for the whole trip. 

I have taken several whole fares without leaving the Bank, using for | 


| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8331 


bait squid, taken on the Banks and refuse fish. The buying of bait on 
the shores of Newfoundland is a convenience rather than a necessity, 
the whole profit of the transaction resting with the Newfoundlanders. 
We also buy ice of the people, paying $24 to $3 per ton in gold for it. 
We also use ice from the icebergs. The only market for their ice is the 
ice used by American fishermen to preserve the bait fresh and it is only 
within three years since this manner has been adopted by them. For 
centuries this fishery has been pursued successfully without this conven- 
ience of iced bait. 

When our vessels go into Newfoundland for bait they are delayed 
often a fortnight, which of course is a loss to them. My trip in July, 
1876, I was delayed a fortnight. The inhabitants are very eager for our 
trade, coming out to meet us in boats to solicit our patronage. The men 
who furnish bait are operative fishermen. Since the advent of the 
American fleet these men have become independent of the coast traders 
and there is some feeling on the part of the traders on that account. 
The operative fishermen were formerly employed by the traders and 
paid out of the store mostly, but the American trade in herring paying 
money for them, has changed the relations largely. ; 

There is no fishery on the shores of the Dominion, or Newfoundland, 
used as a shore fishery for halibut and codfish by American fishermen. 
Their fisheries are wholly and purely deep sea fisheries. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mackerel part of 22 sea- 
sons. 

My highest stock was $8000 whole season. 

6c lowest 6c 6c $1800 66 6c 

An American vessel manned and equipped as the Bay-men are, must 
at the least stock $5000 for a season to pay her bills. In my experience 
not more than one-fourth of the mackerel taken were taken within 3 
miles of the shore. I never heard such a thing as mackerel cleanings or 


_ Offal affecting the fish unfavorably, when thrown overboard. Often 


times after dressing and throwing the fresh offal overboard, we have found 
the mackerel attracted by it and caught good decks of mackerel that 
had apparently come in to this as in to our throw bait. We use it often 
to extend our bait. The British boat fishery is pursued near the shore 
and the schooners will not venture in where they are, especially if the 
wind is on shore owing to the shallowness of the water. The boat tish- 
ery is one thing, the schooner fishery another and different thing. I 
never knew of but one boat injured by the fleet and that was done by 
accident. The boat fishermen often come on board our vessels for favors 
which are cheerfully granted, and in the case of injury, above mentioned, 
the owners were well remunerated for the loss. The idea that fish offal 
thrown overboard can be detected by the smell after it has sunk is non- 
sense. I have trans-shipped my mackerel in one instance, putting them 
on board a British vessel for freight home. The advantage of trans- 
shipment at present is of no value whatever, as few or none of our ves- 
sels obtain a full trip, and the Bay mackereling has been a losing busi- 
hess fhe past 4 years and this year bids fair to be worse than any. 
- JOS. W. COLLINS. 


COMMONWEALTH OF pe 
County OF ESSEX, S$. S., 
GLOUCESTER, Aug. 28th, 1877. 

Then personally appeared the above named Joseph W. Collins and 
made oath that all the above statements by him subscribed are true te 
the best of his knowledge and belief, before me. ; 

{L.. 8.] DAVID W. LOW, Notary Public. 


3332 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 265. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 25, 1877. 

I, John Glenn, was born in York, Maine; am 39 years of age, and on 
oath do depose and say, that I have been engaged in the fishing busi- 
ness twenty years. I have been mackereling in Gulf St. Lawrence for 
10 seasons, mostly from Gloucester. The best stock I ever made was 
$5,000 in any season ;. was in the Abba H. Swasey, of Gloucester, buying 


a license for fishing inshore. We fished mostly around the Magdalen . 


Islands, and about all our mackerel were taken there. $5,000 was the 
highest stock I ever made in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, mackerel fishing 
in the Abba H. Swasey. We did not have occasion to use our license. 
We were also on Bank Bradley. My lowest stock was $2,000, in 1871. 
An American schooner for a full season’s fishing from June to last of 
October in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, must stock $5,000 to pay her bills. 
I never knew of any American vessel damaging the British boats, but, 
on the contrary, have often had them come to us to grind bait, and other 
favors. 

This present season we went from York, Maine, to Gulf of St. Law-- 
rence, codfishing, in schooner Anna F. Mason, 30 tons, carries 9 men. 
Commenced to fit the Ist of July; took no bait from home; bought ice 
in the Gut of Canso ; paid $3 per ton for it; went up off Point Miscou; 
caught our bait on the grounds,—i. é., that is, 15 miles off the shore,— 
in nets; the bait was herring, and commenced fishing with trawls; was 
there a fortnight; took 25,000 Ibs. split fish ; threw most of the offal 
overboard. There were 10 other American vessels fishing at the same 
place; saw 20 Nova Scotia vessels up and down P. E. Island, fishing 
for codfish using hand lines. They throw over the offal as we do. 
Never knew of over 30 sail of American vessels in the Gulf codfishing. 
I should say there were 100 sail of American vessels mackereling. I 
know that while I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that not one- 
tenth part of the whole American catch of mackerel is taken within 
three miles of the shore. We have always thrown overboard the fish 
gurry, and I never have noticed any diminution of fish on that account. 
The American fleet fish in 20 fathoms of water, and they throw over, 
their gurry in this deep water. We bought some supplies on our way 
home. I know of no inshore fishery for codfish now pursued by Ameri- 
can vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The vessels in Maine can ob- 
tain any quantity of porgie slivers and clams for bait at home, but it is 
cheaper to catch the bait on the Banks. Bait was scarce on this trip 
on the fishing grounds. We could have obtained bait from the British 
shore fishermen at about the same price as it would cost to take it from 
home; but we prefer to take the chance of getting it on the fishing 
ground. There used to be quite a number of vessels from Maine pur- 
sue the codfishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but of late years this has 
fallen off greatly. : 

The fishermen have put their vessels into the American shore mack- 
erel fishery, which has been very much more profitable of late years. 
This present trip my crew shared $30 each; time employed, six weeks. 
I have been master of the schooners Joe Hooker, Metacom, Iris, A. H. 
Mason. JOHN GLENN, 

Master of Schooner A. H. Mason, York, Me. 


GLOCESTER, Aug. 25, 1877. 
Personally appeared the above named John Glenn, and swore that 


the above statement by him subscribed, is true, before me. 
ADDISON CARTER, Justice of the Peace. 


— —————————eE 


i. 


AWARD: OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3333 
No. 266. 


GLOUCESTER, August 31, 1877. 


I, John P. Hutchinson, master of the schr. Robert T. Clark, of Bridge- 
port, Connecticut, do, on oath, depose and say, that I was born in New 
York, am 54 years of age, and have just returned from a voyage to Got- 
tenburg, Sweden. I started from Gloucester, the 21st of April, 1877, 
and went to the Magdalen Islands for herring. I carried no nets from - 
Gloucester, but in the Straits of Canso, I hired one seine and two boats, 
and 4 men, all British subjects. At the Island, the seine, manned by 
the owners, and some 6 others that I hired there, took about 400 barrels 
of herring. All the labor of taking, packing, etc., was done by British 


- subjects, and their service paid for in cash. I also bought 200 barrels 


of herring from other British fishermen, paying about 25 cents per bar- 


rel, landed on board my vessel. Not being able to get as many herring 


as I wanted at the Magdalens, I started on the 20th of May for Fortune 
Bay. There were 30 American vessels at the Magdalen Islands after 
herring, buying and hiring the herring caught, the same as I was. Ar- 
rived at Fortune Bay on the 25th of May, and bought 1,300 barrels of 
herring from the people on shore, paid 80 cents per barrel in gold. 

Left Fortune Bay the 18th of June, and arrived at Gottenburg on the 


- Sth of July, herring in good order, and sold slow, and at prices that will 


not more than pay the expenses of the voyage. I found the people at 
Fortune Bay very desirous to sell. 

My voyage was as much a commercial voyage, as if I were buying po- 
tatoes or any other product of the Dominion; and all of the herring 
taken by other vessels, so far as I could observe, were bought and paid 
for in the same manner as [ bought. I carried 2,000 bbls from Eastport 
which were never landed at Fortune Bay, but I was obliged to pay du- 
ties on them. I also paid light dues, $45. 

I have never been in the fishing business, and as far as my observa- 
tion goes, the trade with the American vessels at Newfoundland and the 
Magdalens is a source of profit, and large gains to the people there. 

The Joseph Wilder, an American vessel, was at Gottenburg when I 


Was, and her cargo of herring was half rotten. Taking the whole of the 


European trade in herring, sent from this side, I should say, on the 
whole, that there has been no money made in it by Americans. This 
trade is experimental, and the full results are, so far, not very satisfac- 


tory. 
JOHN P. HUTCHINSON. 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
COUNTY OF ESsSsEx, SS. GLOUCESTER, Sept. Ist, 1877. 


Then personally appeared John P. Hutchinson, above named, who 
made oath, that all the above statements by him subscribed are true, 
to the best of his knowledge and belief, before me, 

(L. 8.) DAVID W. LOW, 
Notary Public. 


No. 267. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 31, 1877. 
I, James MclIsaac, Master of the schooner Lais, of Port Hawkesbury, 
Nova Scotia, on oath do depose and say, that I was born in Port Hast- 
ings, Strait of Canso, am 42 years of age, that I have been engaged in 


3334 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the fisheries for 18 years, just arrived from Grand Banks and Gulf of 
St. Lawrence from a codfish trip. I brought in 80,000 lbs. codfish; we 
took 60,000 Ibs. on Grand Banks; the vessel sprung a leak, and we had 
to run in home. I, after my vessel was repaired, went on to bank 
Bradelle, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where I took 20,000 more of cod- 
fish, 25 miles from shore. I caught my bait for this trip off Prince 
Edward Island, about three miles off from shore; the bait I used was 
mackerel. It is the usual custom of the vessels from Nova Scotia, 


bound to the Banks ecodfishing, to buy bait from the shore people of © 


Newfoundland and Nova Scotia; the average price of herring is about 
$2 per barrel. I have paid as high as $3.50 per barrel. 

The market of the fishing vessels buying bait of the shore people is a 
very profitable one for the shoresmen, as they get more for their her- 
ring, Selling them fresh, than any other way they can dispose of them. 
I have been to Newfoundland, to buy fresh herring, seven seasons, and 
when I first went there the people hardly had a net or a boat, and they 
were living very poorly; but now, owing to the herring trade with the 
American and other vessels, they are prosperous and are living in good 
style. They own boats and nets, and all of this prosperity is directly 
owing to this trade. There is no other market for these herring, and 
they would be useless if it were not for the market this trade affords 
On the Banks, for a fresh trip, we first use herring to start us, and then, 
after the first fish are caught, we use the refuse fish for bait. I have 
caught four trips on the Banks without having any herring, and took squid 
on the Banks, and these squid, with the refuse, was all I used. I should 
say that if all the vessels would carry salt bait they would do full as well 
as they do now with herring. I think using fresh bait makes the fish 
dainty. The Provincetown vessels this year have done as well as any ves- 
sels with fresh bait; they using clams. I have never heard of any boats in 
the Bay being injured before the talk this year; but I have known the 
boats to flock around the American vessels to get the benefit of their 
bait, so that the vessels could not get a line into the water. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 10 seasons mackereling, in 
American vessels ; never with seines; always with the hook. The best 
season’s work I ever made in the bay was $400 toa share. The poores® 
season was $200. I have not been in the bay for four years. Some years 
we get more inshore; some years get more offshore. I should say that 
one-half of the mackerel are, in my experience of hooking, taken in- 
shore, viz: within three miles. I never heard or knew of such a thing 
as fish cleanings hurting the fish; that is a new idea. 

The American seiners have made a great deal of money in seining 
ee off their own coast; this [know, being where I could ascertain 
this fact. 

The American cod and halibut fishery is a deep-sea fishery entirely. 

; Years ago a few trips were made up around Anticosti, but it is noth- 
ing to the great sea-fishing. Now they take all their fish on the Banks, 
off shore; none less than 12 miles off, and some 300 miles off. 

JAMES McISAAC, 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


COUNTY OF ESSEX, SS. GLOUCESTER, Aug. 21, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named James Mclsaac, and made | 


oath that the above statement, by him subscribed, is true. Before | 


me, 
(L. 8.) DAVID W. LOW, 
Notary Public. 


| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3335 


No. 268. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 28, 1877. 


I, John S. Jameson, master of the schr. Henry Wilson, of Gloucester, 
on oath, do depose and say: That I was born in Guysboro, Nova Scotia, 
am 46 years of age, have been engaged in the fisheries for 30 years. 

I have just arrived from a trip to Greenland for halibut. I brought 
home 120,000 Ibs. of halibut and 30,000 Ibs. of codfish. We caught our 
fish 25 miles from land. I have been 10 years in the Western and 
Grand Bank fisheries. We usually take 15 bbls. of porgie slivers for a 
trip from Gloucester, and either go to Nova Scotia or Newfoundland for 
fresh bait. We always buy this fresh bait and pay cash for it. We 
pay on an average about 14 dollars per barrel for this bait, taking 45 
bbls to a trip, usually two trips a year. Sometimes we go in for bait 4 
times to a trip, taking 45 bbls. each time. The bait costs us about 200 
dollars for the full trip. If there was no demand for these herring the 
people would not catch them at all. The American fisheries on the 
Banks has absolutely created a new business for these people. I have 
caught a number of trips of fish without getting any fresh bait from the 
shore, using my slivers and refuse fish. The Grand Bank fisheries has 
been pursued for centuries, the first beginning of this shore fresh bait 
business is within 10 years. It is entirely to the advantage of the shore 
people of Newfoundland and other places to sell this bait, as they realize 
large sums from what would otherwise be of no value whatever to them. 

There is nearly a half million dollars paid to the English people for 
herring by Americans, including the winter fresh herring trade. This 
would be entirely worthless to them except for the American trade. 
The American cod and halibut fishery is entirely a deep sea fishery. 
With centuries of fishing on the sea Banks and for centuries throwing 
over offal there is no real diminution of fish there. The use of fresh 
bait has made the fish dainty and on the whole it has been an injury to 
our fishing there using this bait. If all the Bank fishermen would use 
salt bait it would be better for the whole. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mackerel 10 years or sea- 

2sons. Not more than one-fourth of the mackerel are taken within three 
miles of the shore by the Americans. . American vessels in the Bay will 
not average more than three hundred barrels of mackerel each for a 
seasons mackereling there, this is a fair average for 10 years. 

JOHN 8S. JAMESON. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


County oF ESSEX, 8. 8S. GLOUCESTER, Aug, 28, 1877. 
Then personally appeared the above named James 8S. Jameson and 
made oath that all the statements by him subscribed are true before me, 
Ss) DAVID W. LOW, : 
Notary Public. 
No. 269. 


GLOUCESTER, September 3, 1877. 


_ I, James L. Anderson, Master of the American schr. Seth Stockbridge, 
of Gloucester, Mass., do, on oath, depose and say, that I was born in 
Middle Millford, Straits of Canso, am 37 years of age. I have been en- 
gaged in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery for 24 seasons. 

~ [have just returned from a trip to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mack- 
erel. 


7 


3336 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I began to fit my vessel for this trip on the 11th of July, 1877, sailed 
from Gloucester on the 14th; went down to the coast of Maine, and 


seined porgies for bait; took 30 bbls of slivers; I arrived in the Gulf of - 


St. Lawrence on the 28th of July; caught our first mackerel off East 
Point, 4 miles from shore; took 15 barrels; then went up the east side 
of Prince Edward Island, as far as New London, tried all the way up, 
and got no mackerel. We then ran down the Island to Second Chapel, 
and took 10 barrels of mackerel there, inside of three miles. Then run 
down to the Magdalen IsJands, and took 45 barrels in four days on the 
hook, off Brine island, over three miles from shore. I then went back 
to P. E. Island, fished there for a week, and did not get 10 barrels of 
mackerel. We then went to the whole northern side of Cape Breton, 
tried all the way for mackerel, and got nothing. Again went to the 
Magdalen Islands, tried there 4 days, and got 5 barrels of mackerel; 
went back to P. E. Island again, tried all round the north, east, and 
south sides, and fonnd nothing. I then fished off Port Hood, and Cape 
George, took 10 barrels of mackerel, and being completely discouraged, 
I left the Bay on the 24th of August. We could find no mackerel, 
neither had any vessels we saw, seen any mackerel to speak of for a 
fortnight. I know that the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
is a thorough and complete failure this year, and cannot help being a 
great loss to American owners and fishermen, in having their vessels 
go there at all. I think the mackerel went out of the Bay, for the rea- 
son that there was nothing in the water for them to eat. I consider 
that the large amount of bait formerly thrown by the American fleet, 
when fishing with hooks, had a great effect in keeping the mackerel in 
the Bay. Since the vessels have ceased to go there in large numbers, 
this bait has not been there to keep them in. Each American vessel 
used to throw, on an average, 90 barrels of bait in a season, costing 
from 4 to 6 dollars per barrel. 

My present trip from the Gulf of St. Lawrence packed out 90 barrels 
of mackerel, mostly No. 2s, a few No. 1s and No. 3s. 

The time consumed from the date of fitting, to final settlement, will 
be just two months. 
. My vessel is a new, first-class vessel, rating 90 tons, new measure- 

ment. I had a seine boat and seine, partly used, worth 750 dollars. 


My vessel’s charter is worth $300 per Month, for 2 months $600 00 


The use of seine and boat for 2 months, 150 00 
Sixteen Men’s Wages, at $30 per Month, for 2 Months, 960 00 
Captain’s Wages at $75 per Month, 6“ 150 00 
Outfits, including Provisions, Bait, Salt Barrels, &c., 500 00 
Packing and Inspection, 70 00 
Insurance, 100 00 

Total Cost, $2, 530 00 

RECEIPTS. 

Ninety Barrels of Mackerel, at $12, $1, 080 00 

Actual Loss, : $1, 450 00 


In 1875, I was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and cruised all over it, 
and found no mackerel at all. 

I have been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the last 20 years, every 
year, except 1873, 1874, 1876. 

I did not go there last year, as all the reports showed that there was 
no mackerel there. 


we 


= . 


* 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3337 


In all my experience in taking mackerel in the Gulf, not more than 
one-fourth are taken within three miles of the shore. I have taken 
whole entire trips with not a single mackerel of them taken within five 
miles of the shore. 

I have seined off the American shore parts of five years. I have 
stocked in a single season, seining mackerel there alone, reckoning no 
other fish, seven thousand six hundred dollars in a season. 

The best stock I ever made in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel 
fishery in one whole season, was six thousand seven hundred dollars. 
These figures are taken from my books, and are correct. My poorest 
stock in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery was in 1875, when I 
tried all over the Gulf, and could not raise a mackerel. Of course, I 
stocked nothing. ‘ 

During the past 10 years, the American shore mackerel have been 
greatly superior to the Bay mackerel of the same brand in texture, qual- 
ity, and price. 

On the American shore, we take mackerel sometimes close in, and 
they are sometimes taken on Georges Banks 100 miles off. 

I have been some trips to the Western Banks for cod-fish, and we 
bought our fresh bait of the shore people of the Dominion of Canada, 
always paying casb for it. 

The people make more than double the profit selling herring to the 
American fishermen, than in any other manner that they can dispose of 
them. Ihave caught a whole trip on the Banks, entirely by the use of 
salt bait, carried from the United States. 

Fish offal, when thrown overboard in very shoal water, has a tendency 
to keep fish away until the water clears; but in deep water, there is no 
perceptible effect on the fish. I never knew of the shore boats being 
interfered with, or injured by the vessels. The American schooners are 
very particular not to trouble the boats; and it is a universal fact that 
the schooners never can get any mackerel on the grounds inshore, in shoal 
water, where the boats usually fish. I never took 10 barrels of mack- 
erel on the boat’s fishing grounds in all my fishing in the Bay. 

I have ‘*hove to” this year near where the boats were fishing and 
getting some mackerel, and we could not catch a mackerel. In most of 
the places where the boats fish, my vessel could not go in, as they 
fish in from two to four fathoms of water, and my vessel draws 12 feet 
of water; and this fact applies to most of the American schooners. 

I have been to Grand Manan for herring, to carry to Gloucester, to 
bait Georges men, and paid from 65 cents to one dollar per hundred for 
fresh herring, and the same herring for any other purpose or market was 
not worth to the people who took them 25 cents a hundred to salt. The 
shore people always eatch the herring. 

I have had but one trip of mackerel sent home from the Bay by trans- 
shipment, and that trip cost just one dollar per barrel to get them to 
Gloucester by a sailing vessel. This was in 1861. 

I have been master of the following schooners:—The Morning Light, 
Pescador, Ida Thurlow, Benj. Haskell, George 8. Low, Seth Stockbridge. 

CAPT. JAMES L. ANDERSON. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 4, 1877. 
CouNTY oF Essex, SS. 

Then personally appeared the above named James L. Anderson, Cap- 
tain, and made oath, that all the statements by him subscribed, are true, 
to the best of his knowledge and belief, before me, 

(L. 8.) DAVID W. LOW, Notary Public. 


3338 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 270. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 27, 1877. 


I, Jesse Lewis, Master of the American schr. Alice M. Lewis, of Glou- 
cester, on oath do depose and say, that I was born in Kittery, Maine, 
am 48 years age, and have been engaged in the fisheries 35 years. I 
have just arrived from the Gulf of St. Lawrence from a mackereling trip. 
I commenced to fit my vessel for this trip the 1st of July, 1877. I sailed 
from Gloucester the 5th of July, arrived in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
about the 14th of July. Was fitted with a purse seine and boat, and 
one small seine. The first mackerel I took two miles off East Point, in 
the seine,—about 100 bris., mostly twos; from there went off Point 
Miscou and Gaspe; got no mackerel there; came back to Prince Edward 
Island; caught 50 bris. on the hook near the shore. We afterward went 
to the Magdalen Islands, and caught about 50 bris. on the hook, along 
the shore. The average of these mackerel were twos, worth 12 dollars 
per bbl. Our trip packed out 175 bbls., and brought 2,100 dollars. 

My trip will consume just two months’ time, for vessel and crew. 


The charter of my vessel, at $250 per month, $500 00 


Wages of 15 men, at $30 per month, 9u0 00 
Outfits, viz., provisions, salt, barrels, etc., 500 00 
Insurance, 100 00 
Packing, 131 25 
Expense of seines, wear and mending and use, 200 00 
Hooks and lines, 25 00 
Total cost, $2,356 25 
Total receipts, $2,100 00 
Actual and real loss, $256 25 


I have been in the Bay 28 seasons,—24 mackereling and 4 codfishing. 
My average stock for the whole of the seasons in the Bay is $4,500 a 
season. Not over one-third of the mackerel I have taken there were 
taken within three miles of the shore. We always throw overboard 
the cleanings of the mackerel, except what we save to use as throw-bait. 
The fish come eagerly after this offal. I neverheard of any being poisoned 
by it; but they swarm to get it. Inever heard any fishermen complain, 
as i have seen them this year, the British boats throwing all their offal 
A ties This is the universal practice of all fishermen, American and 

nglish. 

The practice of lee-bowing is universal, both by English and Ameri- 
can vessels. I never knew of any British boats being injured by the 
American schooners. The American and British mode of fishing are 
entirely different, as the boat fishing is a shore fishery, and the large 
American schooners cannot, on aceon of the depth of water, fish 
where the boats generally resort. The boats obtain many favors from 
the American vessels, such as using their mills to grind bait, and often 
giving them salt and bait. The boat fishermen, as a class, have always 
been jealous of the American fishermen. I have this year given bait 
to a number of their boats. The years that our fishermen were totally 
excluded from the inshore mackerel fishing by the cutters, they made 
the best fares. That is my personal experience. I know of no inshore 
eodfishery pursued by American vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 
I never caught a codfish there inside of 15 miles from the shore, nor 
ever knew any American vessel so doing. 


. 


. 9 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3339 


There are more British than American vessels engaged in the codfish- 
ery of the Gulf of St. Luwrence; they all throw their offal overboard, 
including the shore boats. I went to Newfoundland 19 years ago, for 
herring; have been 15 tripssince. Inever caught a herring there, but in- 
variably bought them, and paid the inhabitants for them. When I first 
went there 1 paid one dollar per bbl.; they are now worth from $1.50 to $2. 
The American trade in herring has kept the people from starvation, and 
raised whole communities from poverty to comparative affluence. [ . 
have known $60,000 to be paid for herring in Fortune Bay alone, by the 
American fleet, in one single winter, and there would have been none 
sold otherwise, as there is not any demand for these herring, except by 
Americans, for the American market. I think there are about 100 sail 
of Americans in the Bay this year. The average number of American 
vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence the past 20 years is not over 250 
vessels, taking one year with another. Out of the fleet this year there 
is not over a dozen that have taken as many mackerel as I have, and a 
large proportion of the fleet are leaving the Bay entirely discouraged. — 
The Wm. 8. Baker has arrived in Gloucester, within two hours, from the 
Bay of St. Lawrence with only five barrels of mackerel. 

I have been master of the schooners Susan EH. Brown, Hattie Lewis, 
Ida May, Two Forty, Theron F. Dale, Alice M. Lewis. 

JESSE LEWIS. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


CouNTY OF Essex, SS. GLOUCESTER, Aug. 27, 1877. 
Then personally appeared the above named Jesse Lewis, and made 
oath, that all the above statements by him subscribed, are true to the 
best ‘of his knowledge and belief, before me. 
DAVID W. LOW. 
(ig Be) Notary Public. 
No. 271. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 3, 1877. 
I, Samuel M. Farmer, master of the schooner Maud Muller, of Glou- 
cester, on oath do depose and say, that I was born in Booth Bay, Me. 
I have just returned from a trip to the coast of Maine. I have been ab- 
sent five weeks. I brought home 230 barrels of mackerel, making 40 


_ barrels No. 1’s and 190 barrels No. 2’s. The No. 1’s are worth $24 per 


barrel, the No. 2’s are worth $15 per barrel. My whole trip is worth 
$3, 810. 


The charter of my saagel is worth $100 per month. $125 00 


MINCCREN AHO Fc oscc ce aka ene cee ow eae pace sigan we 390 00 
BAG cas Bee oe ee ae eas at wcaiels Garatom ails eee Pperee 30 00 
RES 8 attain k's bio vg oa wie ecoats Cte nie daiwie'e ete 150 00 
AIIINO Ooo oe ooo etd ce tea ule eee et ealereew 50 00 
Packing and Tnspection .. ...- .. 20. cccnes ceases 172 00 
Use of Seine and Boat... 2. 2.50% sees ocice sera alecan 75 00 
Cast 60 brine «.2o5o5.6 cece sale Sea wiauwieiee ea lelsacne $992 00 
Receipts 230 barrels mackerel ..........-+ -. +--+ 3,810 00 

Premde..c.c-3 a5 a. ave her ok aevmalala sd bincabtecabonetaresa'a’s $2,818 00 


My vessel is only 45 tons. She took these mackerel 8 miles from 
Mount Desert Rock. The mackerel are schooling in every direction 


3340 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 


there. I am going back immediately. I think the prospect is good -_ 
for a large Fall catch on our shores. I have been in the Bay of St. 
Lawrence three seasons for mackerel, in 1868, 1869, 1870—three years. 
1870 I made 866 for the season, the two years previous we shared $270, 
each man for 5 months fishing. These were extra good years in the 
Bay. 
Of allthe mackerel we took during the three years amounting to 

nearly 1,800 barrels, only 90 wash barrels were taken on Sudick shoals 
' within three miles of the shore. 

I have on the American shore made $500 to a share in a season, the 
least I ever made on this shore mackereling was $400, a season of five 
months. The Bay mackerel fishery for this and the two last vears has 
been an entire failure. I have been to Grand Manan one Winter for |. 
herring. I bought my herring of the people on shore, paying cash for 
them. I paid from 60 to 90 cents per hundred. There is no market, and 
no use to which these herring can be put that will begin to pay the peo- 
ple the amount of profit that this sale to American vessels produces. I 
have also been to the Western Banks fishing for cod. We took one 
baiting at New Brunswick and one at Cape Breton, paying 50 cents 
per hundred at New Brunswick, and $1 per barrel at Cape Breton in 
cash. At Cape Breton the herring remaining on hand were thrown 
overboard after we were baited, as there was no vessels there to take 
them, they were worthless for any purpose for which the people could 
use them. 

SAMUEL M. FARMER. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


GLOUCESTER, Sept. 3d, 1877. 
CouNTY OF ESSEX, SS. 

Then personally appeared the above-named Samuel M. Farmer, and 
made oath that all the above statements by him subscribed, are true to 
the best of his knowledge and belief, before me, | 

DAVID W. LOW, Notary | 


No. 272. 


I, Alexander McDonald, of Provincetown, in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, being duly sworn, do depose and say that I am thirty 
years of age and am the captain of the schooner Willie A. Jowell, engaged 
in fishing for cod upon the Grand Banks and [ have returned with one 
thousand quintals of fish—all taken on trawls. I have been trawling 
for cod for nine years and until this year have always used salt clams 
for bait which-I carried from home. This year I went to Newfoundland 
to purchase fresh bait for the first time. I arrived at the Bay of Bulls 
about the eighteenth day of July to get fresh bait, with seven hundred 
quintals on board, taken previously with salt clams and squid caught 
on the Banks. I found no bait at Bay of Bulls and left for Cape Royal 
finding no bait there either. Then went to Portugal Cove, Conception 
Bay, where I had to wait five days before I could purchase any bait at 
all. I then returned to the Banks with twenty barrels of squid for which 
I paid about thirty cents per hundred, having been absent from the fish- 
ing grounds about two weeks. I caught one hundred quintals with the 
squid I had purchased at Newfoundland, the remainder of the trip I 
caught with salt bait at Newfoundland, and if I had not wasted so much 
time in going to Newfoundland after fresh bait I should have caught 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. _ 3844 


more fish on the Banks and have came home earlier. I have never fished 
for bait at Newfoundland but have always purchased it and if excluded 
from purchasing I certainly should not go to Newfoundland to catch it 
myself. I consider the trade in bait to be of great advantage to the in- 
habitants of Newfoundland. While at Portugal Cove [ paid William 
Talk, the collector, sixteen 80-100 dollars ($16.80) for light dues, being 
at the rate of twenty-four cents per ton, and this due is collected from 
all American fishing vessels visiting Newfoundland. 
ALEX. McDONALD. 


Sworn before me at Halifax, this 29th day of September, A. D. 
1877. 
: N. H. MEAGHER, 
Notary Public for the Province of Nova Scotia. 


No. 273. 


1, Alonzo Covey, of Swampscott, in the Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts, being duly sworn, do depose and say that [I am fifty-three years 
old, and am the captain of the A. C. Newhall, a fishing vessel of twenty- 
nine (29) tons, at present’ in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I have been en- 
gaged in the fishing business, both as captain and hand, for twenty-five 
years. I have just returned from a trip to the Bay of St. Lawrence, 
mackerel fishing. I left Swampscott the 28th day of last July, and ar- 
rived in the Bay the 7th of August. I first fished near Port Hood, and 
took four barrels of mackerel six miles from the shore. I then took 
twenty-five barrels twelve miles broad off Mimnigash. Then fished off 
Skinneack. from 5 to 15 miles from the land, and took the balance of my 
trip there, with the exception of 14 barrels, which were taken between 
East Cape and Port Hood. I took one hundred and twenty-five barrels 
in the Bay, all of which were taken more than three miles from land, 
except five barrels at North Cape taken inshore. This trip has not been 
successful. The share of the vessel will not more than pay the cost of 
the outfit. Before this season I have been engaged in fishing on the 
United States coast, and my trips there have been much more remuner- 
ative than my present trip to the Bay. I do not consider the privilege 
of fishing within three miles of the Canadian coast of any value to 
American fishermen, and I should much prefer to be entirely excluded 
therefrom, and the former duty of two dollars per barrel to be imposed 


on the Canadian fish. 
ALONZO COVEY. 


Sworn before me in the City of Halifax, in the County of Halifax, 
this 29th day of September, A. D., 1877. 
ROBT. SEDGEWICK, 


Notary Public. 


I, Edward N. Wilkins, of Swampscott, in the Commonwealth of Mas~ 
sachusetts, being duly sworn, do depese and say that I am forty-two 
years old. I have beenafisherman for twenty-five years, and am now one 
of the crew of the schooner A. 0. Newhall, Captain Covey, and have just 
returned from the Bay of St. Lawrence. We caught 125 barrels of 
mackerel, all of which were taken more than three miles from the shore 
With the exception of five barrels taken inshore between North Cape 
and Mimnigash, Prince Edward Island. Previous to this year I have 
been in the Bay mackerel fishing twelve seasons, the last trip was in 


3342 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


1873 in the schooner Knight Templar, of Gloucester, we took 450 barrels 


of mackerel, all of which were taken more than 3 miles from the shore ~ 


except about 50 barrels taken inshore near Rustico. In all my trips to 
the Bay I do not think that one-fifth of all the mackerel taken were 


caught within three miles of the shore. 
EDWARD N. WILKINS. 


Sworn before me, at the City of Halifax, in the County of Halifax, 
this 29th day of September, A. D. 1877. 
ROBT. SEDGEWICK, Notary Public. 


No. 275. 


I, John S. Staples, of Swans Island, Maine, on oath depose and say 
that I am master of the schr. John Somes, of Portland, Me., and have 
been engaged in catching mackerel during this season, commenced by 
fishing off the American shore, and caught 450 barrels which averaged 
$10 per barrel. The favorable reports from Canso induced me to go 
down the Bay of St. Lawrence and I accordingly sailed about the 25th 
of July. I was on the trip a little over a month, tried for mackerel all 
the way from Port Hood to New London Head, and from there to Mag- 
dalene Islands and from there to Margaree Island, and succeeded in 
getting only eleven barrels which are worth $8 per barrel. I lost on 
this trip to the Bay $1500, at the least calculation. At Canso I was 
visited by the officer who exacted one dollar from me for the support of 
buoys—this is collected of all American vessels. I arrived home from 
the Bay about the 3rd Sept. and since that time I have caught 150 
barrels of mackerel on this shore, which are worth $1400. In year 1872 
I was master of schr. Joseph Story, of Gloucester, was in the Bay 
mackereling and caught 250 barrels, not over 10 barrels of which were 
caught within three miles of the shore. In the year 1873 I was captain 
of the same schooner and fished for mackerel off the American shore 
and took 900 barrels, from which we stocked $8,000. In 1874 I was in 
the said schooner up to July 25th, when I left her on account of sick- 
ness, up to that time we took 650 barrels, from which we stocked $3,500 
all this year the said schooner fished on the American shore. After I 
left her the said schooner took 600 barrels. In 1875 I was in schooner 
Rushlight and fished for mackerel on the American coast, and took during 
the season 900 barrels and stocked about $7,000. In 1876 (last year) I 
was in the schooner John Somes, and fished for mackerel the whole 
season on the American shore and took 1,600 barrels and stocked $9,500. 
I would state that previous to the years enumerated above, I was in the 
Bay mackereling for 15 years and am confident that not one-twentieth 
part of the mackerel caught were caught within the three-mile limit. I 
consider and regard the mackerel fishery on the American shore as far 
more superior and valuable than the British Bay fishery. 

In the Winter of 1870 I was in the schooner Annie FE. Friend, and 
went to Grand Manan for cargo of frozen herring, and bought 300,000 
at the rate of 45 cents per 100. There was at the time 20 sail of 
vessels there after herring, all of which loaded with herring and bought 
them of the inhabitants—they carrying all the way from 150,000 to 
400,000, at from 40 to 60 cents per 100. This trade with the American is 
of great importance to the inhabitants, as they would undoubtedly sufter 
were it not for this trade as they get a great deal of money from this 
source, which is all clear gain to them, as they have no other market 
for their herring. 

JOHN S. STAPLES, 
Master of Schooner John Somes. 


i re ’ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3343 


Custom HOUSE, GLOUCESTER, Oct. 4, 1877. 


Personally appeared Capt. John 8S. Staples, who subscribed to the 
foregoing statement, and made oath that the foregoing statement was 


true, before me. 
ADDISON CARTER, 
Special Deputy Collector and Justice of the Peace. 


No. 276. 


GLOUCESTER, August 25, 1877. 
I, Daniel McNeil, on oath depose and say, that I was born on Cape 
Breton; am 34 years of age; have been engaged in the fisheries for 21 
years, principally in the Bank fishing on Grand Bank, Western and 


‘Quero ; have been master for five years ; am now master of the schooner 
- Eben Parsons, of Gloucester. Arrived from the Grand Banks this 


week. Have always bought my bait of the inhabitants of Newfound- 
land. I paid $80 for my bait on the last trip, and I did not get a full 
baiting. I have never fished for bait at Newfoundland, neither have I 
ever known any of the American fishermen to do so at Newfoundland,— 
always invariably buying what they needed,—and, in fact, if they 


wished to catch their bait they could not, for they are fitted with no 
appliances for the purpose. The inhabitants of Newfoundland are very 


anxious for this trade, always coming on board, even before I can come 


to anchor, soliciting the sale of this bait; and though the American fish- 
ermen pay the highest price for their bait, ice and supplies, still I re- 
-gard it as cheaper to do so. This bait supply to the fishermen furnishes 
occupation to a large part of the inhabitants, and is quite lucrative to 
those engaged in it. This trade has been patronized by the Americans 


engaged in the Bank fishery) very generally for the last seven years. 

vious to that time, it was the custom to catch our bait on the Banks. 
Fish-peas, fish cut up, birds and squid constituted our bait. The in- 
habitants of Newfoundland find the only market for their bait in the 
French and American Bank fleet. I regard this traffic of vastly more 
importance to the inhabitants of Newfoundland than to the American 
fishermen, as we could procure our bait, as heretofore, on the Banks. I 
have seen 20 sail of American vessels in a small cove at Newfoundland 
for bait, which they uniformly purchased. If prevented from purchas- 
ing bait at Newfoundland, the Americans could procure this bait at the 
French Islands, where the French fleet of Bankers get their bait and 
supplies. 

DANIEL McNEIL. 


GLOUCESTER, Aug. 25, 1877. 
Sworn to and subscribed before me, 
ADDISON CARTER, 
Justice of the Peace. 
No; 27%. 


I, Charles E. Parkhurst, of Gloucester, in the State of Massachusetts, 
book-keeper, on oath depose and say, that schooner Energy was built 


‘and owned by my father, Charles Parkhurst, and run by him in the fish- 


ing business until she was sold to go to California, That in 1868 she 
was engaged in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery ; that she 
sailed July 18th, and returned Nov. 14th, 1868; was absent three months 
and twenty-six days, making but one voyage. She brought home and 
packed out one hundred and thirty-three (133) barrels of mackerel, 


oe 


3344 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


which was all her catch for that season. The vessel’s share was $1,085. 
That James Howlett was one of the crew of said vessel on said voyage, 
which was the only voyage he made in her after mackerel. That his 
share of said voyage was eighty-seven dollars and 71-100, which was 


trusteed and paid to Lawyer Perrin. 
CHARLES E. PARKHURST. 


ESSEX, S. S., 
Sept. 21st, 1877. 
Then personally appeared the above named Charles E. Parkhurst and 
made oath that the above statement, by him subscribed, is true, before 


COMMONWEALTH OF ee 


me, 
DAVID" We. LOW, 
Notary Public. 
No. 278. 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
Essex, SS. 


I, Zebulon Tarr, of Gloucester, in said County of Essex, and Com- 
monwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that I have been en- 
gaged in the herring business somewhat extensively in the Province of 
New Brunswick, in the harbors of Deer Isle, St. Andrew’s, Blies Island, 
and other harbors at which herring are to be bought or obtained. 
Within the last ten years I have bought fifteen trips of herring, averag- 
ing two hundred and twenty thousand each, at a cost of four dollars 
and fifty cents a thousand, amounting to fourteen thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty dollars. Two trips, three hundred thousand each, at five 
dollars a thousand, amounting to three thousand dollars. 

Witness my hand, this seventeenth day of October, in the year of our 
Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-seven. 

ZEBULON TARR. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


Essex, SS. Rockport, October 17th, 1877. 


Then personally appeared the above named Zebulon Tarr, and made 
solemn oath to the truth of the foregoing statement by him subscribed, 


before me 
NATHANIEL F. 8S. YORK, 
Justice of the Peace. 


No. 279. 


We have been asked to make a statement of the number of barrels of 
herring caught in American waters on the coast of the United States, 
and the number of barrels of herring caught in Foreign waters during 
the last year handled by us, and to state the relative value of each 
barrel in its green state as it is when taken from the water. 

We find upon examination of our books that we have taken in our 
business during the last year (28,208) twenty-eight thousand two hun- 
dred and eight barrels of herring. 


(16,063) sixteen thousand and sixty-three barrels were caught on the | 


eoast of the United States, between Eastport, Maine, and Provincetown, 
Massachusetts. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3345 


The herring cost us for those caught on the coast of the United States 
from two dollars and twenty-five cents to two dollars and seventy-five 
cents per barrel ; that is for the herring, not including the barrel, salt, 
labor, ete., ete. 

(12,145) twelve thousand one hundred and forty-five barrels were 
caught on the coast of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Mag- 
dalen Islands, and Labrador, as follows :— 


Barrels. 
Caught at Fortune Bay, Nfld............. 8, 587 
POL AROOUs MOL ay sure oil cc ie aesne 200 
as ¢ Nova Scotia (coast)... ....060-- 348 > 12,145 
ke i MACUMICDSiA« vaso cues nexaeas 510 


a “© Bay of Islands, Nfld..........- 2,500 } 


Those caught at Fortune Bay in-paid seventy-five cents, gold, per bar- 
rel; at Port Hood, one dollar per barrel; Nova Scotia, one dollar per 
barrel; Magdalens, seventy-five cents per barrel; and at Bay of Islands, 
Nfid., two dollars per barrel. These prices include what is paid for the 
fish, and does not include the barrels, salt, labor, etc., ete. 

All the herring which we put up in the Provinces as stated herein, 
we bought from the fishermen and paid them at prices as stated; and 
in no case whatever did we ever catch any in nets or seines, but always 
_ purchased the fish from the natives. 

The above number of barrels does not include any herring which our 
vessels brought in the Provinces during the year, for bait. 

We have taken from our books the number of barrels packed. 

GLOUCESTER, MAss., U. 8. A., October 17th, 1877. 

D. C. & H. BABSON. 

WITNESS—CHAS. H. Brown. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


October 17th, 1877. 
Essex, SS. 
Then personally appeared the within named Horatio Babson, and made 
_ oath to the truth of the within statement by him subscribed, in behalf 
| of said firm of D. C. & H. Babson, before me. 
| Witness my hand and official seal the day and year last above writ- 


| ten. 


[L. 8.] JAMES DAVIS, 
Notary Public. 
No. 280. 


William Cogswell, of Salem, County of Essex, and Commonwealth of 
| Massachusetts, on oath, deposes and says, that since August 24th, A. 
| Dy 1866, he has held, and does now, hold the office of Inspector-General 
. of Fish, within and for the said Commonwealth ; the duties of which 
_ said office, among other things, are to supervise, either personally or by 


| deputy, the packing and inspecting of all pickled fish put up within 


said Commonwealth, to keep an accurate account of the same, and to 
report thereon in detail, as to the number of barrels, the quality 


'| and kind of such fish, to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, 


I that he is under bonds to the Treasurer of the said Commonwealth, 


i in the sum of ten thousand dollars; that in the discharge of his du- 


| ties, he is assisted by some one hundred deputies, more or less, in 
| the different seaport towns of said Commonwealth, each of whom 


210 F° 


“en 


3346 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


are under bonds to him in the sum of six thousand dollars; that 


he has given especial attention to informing himself from all possible ~ 


sources of information, in what waters, and what coasts the fish, which 
has passed under his supervision since he came into his said office, were 
caught; that he has also required and received sworn returns or affida- 
vits from a large number of his deputies, many of whom are owners of 
the fishing vessels ; many of whom have been engaged in the fishing it- 
self, and allof whom haveasaccurate knowledge on the subject as is pos- 
sible to be obtained, showing the number of barrels of fish caught 
within the three mile line of the coast of Her Britannic Majesty’s Do- 
minions in North America, during the fishing seasons of 1867 and 1876, 
inclusive, upon which said returns or affidavits, and upon his own best 
knowledge and belief, and upon his own reports as aforesaid, he says as 
follows:—That in the year ending December 20th, 1867, there were in- 
spected in said Commonwealth, two hundred and eleven thousand five 
hundred and ten barrels of mackerel, and no more; that he has aftida- 
vits as aforesaid, covering some ninety-seven thousand barrels of said 
mackerel, of which only some two thousand were caught within said 
three mile line, or in other words, about two and one-sixteenth per cent., 
which applied to the whole catch of that year, would give some forty- 
three hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel only that were caught 
within said line, in said year of 1867. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1868, there were inspected 
in said Commonwealth, one hundred and eighty thousand and fifty-six 
barrels of mackerel and no more. That of this number he has affida- 
vits as aforesaid covering some one hundred and two thousand barrels 
of said mackerel and no more of which only some sixteen hundred bar- 
rels were caught within said three mile line, or in other words some one 
and one-half per cent. which applied to the whole catch of that year 
would give some twenty-seven hundred barrels of mackerel only that 
were caught within said three mile line in said year of L868. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1869, there were inspected in 
said Commonwealth, two hundred and thirty-four thousand two hun- 
dred barrels of mackerel and no more, and that of this number he has 
affidavits as aforesaid covering some one hundred and thirty-two thou- 
sand barrels and no more of said mackerel, of which only eighteen hun- 
dred barrels were caught within said three-mile line, or in other words 
some one and one-third per cent. which applied to the whole catch of 
that year, would give some thirty-one hundred barrels of mackerel only 
that were caught within said three-mile line in said year of 1869. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1870, there were inspected in 
said Commonwealth three hundred and eighteen thousand five hundred 
and twenty-one barrels of mackerel and no more, and that of this num- 
ber he has affidavits as aforesaid, covering someone hundred and ninety- 
eight thousand barrels and no more of said mackerel, of which only 
some twenty-five hundred barrels were caught within said three mile 
line, or in other words some one and one-eight per cent. which applied 
to the whole catch of that year would give some thirty-five hundred 
barrels of mackerel only that were caught within said three mile line in 
said year of 1870. 


That in the year ending December 20th, 1871, there were inspected in__ 


said Commonwealth, two hundred and fifty-nine thousand, four hundred 
and sixteen barrels and no more, of mackerel, and that of this number 
he bas affidavits as aforesaid, covering some one hundred and eighty- 
five thousand barrels and no more of said mackerel, of which only some 
eighteen hundred barrels were caught within said three mile line, or in 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3347 


other words some one per cent., which applied to the whole catch of 
that year, would give some twenty-five hundred barrels mackerel, only 
that were caught within said three-mile line in said year of 1871. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1872, there were inspected in 
this Commonwealth one hundred and eighty one-thousand nine hundred 
and fifty-seven barrels of mackerel, and no more; and that of this num- 
ber he has affidavits as aforesaid, covering some one hundred and twenty- 
eight thousand barrels, and no more, of said mackerel,—of which only 
some sixteen hundred barrels were caught within said three-mile line, 
or, in other words, some one and one-sixth per cent., which applied to 
the whole catch of that year, would give some two thousand one bun- 
dred and twenty-three barrels of mackerel only that were caught within 
said three-mile line in said year of 1872. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1873, there were inspected in 
said Commonwealth, one hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred 
and forty-eight barrels of mackerel, and no more; and that of this num- 
ber he has affidavits as aforesaid, covering some one hundred and forty- 
one thousand barrels, and no more, of said mackerel, of which only some 
twenty-four hundred barrels were caught within said three-mile line,— 
or, in other words, some one and three-eighths per cent.,— which, applied 
to the whole catch of that year, would give some twenty-eight hundred 
barrels of mackerel only that were caught within said three mile line in 
said year of 1873. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1874, there were inspected 
in said Commonwealth, two hundred and fifty-eight thousand three hun- 
dred and eighty barrels of mackerel, and no more; and that of this 
number he has affidavits as aforesaid, covering some one hundred and 
eighty-four thousand barrels, and no more, of said mackerel, of which 
only some eight hundred barrels were caught within said three-mile 
line,—or, in other words, some three-sixteenths of one per cent.,—which, 
applied to the whole catch of that year, would give some eleven hun- 
dred barrels of mackerel only that were caught within said three-mile 
line in said year of 1874. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1875, there were inspected in 
said Commonwealth, one hundred and thirty thousand and fourteen 
barrels of mackerel, and no more; and that he has affidavits covering 
some ninety thousand barrels, and no more, of said mackerel, of which 
only some three hundred barrels were caught within said three-mile line, 
or in other words, some one-third of one per cent., which applied to the 
whole catch of that year, would give some four hundred and thirty-three 
barrels of mackerel only that were caught within the said three-mile 
line in said year of 1875. 

That in the year ending December 20th, 1876, there were inspected in 
said Commonwealth, two hundred and twenty-five thousand nine bun- 
dred and forty-one barrels of mackerel, and no more; and that he has 
affidavits as aforesaid, covering some one hundred and ninety thousand 
barrels, and no more of said mackerel, of which only some three hun- 
dred barrels were caught within said three mile line, or in other words, 
some one-sixth of one per cent., which, applied to the whole catch ot 
that year, would give some three hundred and seventy-six barrels of 
mackerel only that were caught within said three mile line in said year 
of 1876. And said deponent doth further depose and say, upon his best 
judgment, information and belief, that of the whole number of barrels 
of mackerel inspected in said Commonwealth, from 1867 to 1876, inclu- 
sive, amounting to nearly two million two hundred thousand barrels, 
not more than some twenty-three thousand barrels were caught within 


. 


3348 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the said three mile line. That of the whole number of barrels of — 


mackerel inspected in said Commonwealth from 1873 to 1876, inclusive, 
amounting to some eight hundred thousand barrels, not more "than some 
forty-seven hundred and nine ‘barrels were caught within said three mile 
line. And that for the last four or five years preceding the date hereof, 
the catch of mackerel within said three mile line, and off the coasts, or 
in the Bays along the coasts of Her Britannic Majesty’s Dominion in 
North America has been rapidly decreasing, the catch within the three 
mile line as aforesaid, decreasing from twenty-eight hundred barrels in 
1873 to eleven hundred barrels in 1874, to four hundred and thirty-three 
barrels in 1875, to three hundred and seventy-six barrels_in 1876. That 
from his own personal knowledge, the fishing firms of said Common- 
wealth, during the last four or five years as aforesaid, have substantially 
given upas of but little or no profit what is known as the “ Bay fishing,” 
and have confined their fishing vessels substantially to the shores, bays, 
and coasts within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. 

Witness my band, at Boston, County of Suffolk, and Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts, this day of August, A. D., 1877. 

WM. COGSWELL, 
Inspector-General of Fish for Massachusetts. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 


OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, SUFFOLK, S. 8. 


This may certify that William Cogswell, of Salem, County of Essex 


and Commonwealth aforesaid, has held the office of Inspector General 
of fish within and for this Commonwealth since Aug. 24, A. D. 1866, and 
does now hold the said office, and that on this twentieth day of August, 
1877, said Cogswell personally appeared before me and made oath that 
the foregoing statement by him subscribed was true, according to his 
best judgement, information and belief. Witness my hand and the Great 
Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the year and date above 
written. 
(L. 8.) HENRY B. PEIRCE, 
Secretary of the Commonwealth. 


Ugg) saga meas = ta lO et DR I,“ 


EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (NEW- 
‘ FOUNDLAND) JULY 7ru, 1871. 


[Copy. ] 
NEWFOUNDLAND, } 
No. 28. ‘ 
DOWNING STREET, 17th June, 1871. 
Srr:—I have the honor to enclose herewith copies of the Treaty signed 
at Washington on May 8th by the Joint High Commissioners, which has 
been ratified by Her Majesty and by the President of the United States; 
of the Instructions to Her Majesty’s High Commissioners and Protocols 
of the Conferences held by the Commission; of two notes which have 
passed between Sir E. Thornton and Mr. Fish; and of a despatch of 
even date, herewith, which I have addressed to the Governor-General of 
Canada, stating the views of Her Majesty’s Government on these im- 
portant documents. 
. With reference to that part of my Despatch to Lord Lisgar, which 
bears upon the proposed arrangement for the immediate provisional ad- 
mission of the United States fishermen to the Colonial Fisheries, I have 
to observe that Her Majesty’s Government are aware that under this 
Treaty, as under the Convention of 1854, Newfoundland is placed in a 
somewhat different position to that of the other Colonies interested, but 
they would strongly urge upon the Government of Newfoundland, that 
it is most desirable for the general interest of the Empire that the same 
course should be pursued as in 1854, and that the application made by 
the United States Government should be acceded to by Newfoundland, 
so that American fishermen may be at once allowed, during the present 
season, the provisional use of the privileges granted to them by the 
Treaty. 
I have, &ce., : ; 
(Signed) KIMBERLEY. 
Governor HILL, C. B., &c. 


In compliance with the request made by the Right Hon. Earl Kim- 
berley, in his despatch of 17th June ultimo, to His Excellency the 
Governor, it is agreed to accede thereto. 


Correct copy. 
(Signed) G. D. SHEA, 
Clerk Ex. Council. 


ode EIN De Or: 


STATISTICS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 


1 


Statistical Documents relating to the Fisheries and Trade in Fish be- 
tween the United States and British North America. 


I. 


Table showing the importations into the United Slates of fish of all kinds from all countries 


Fresh for = 

daily use. | Free. | Dutiable. | Total. 
BBO Sec ee ss vats oda uate cana oe wececeine cs dl seeciou cae al eeenabeccese 1,973,170 | 4, 973, 170 
BID eee she esa Ses ok eae oes Beas eae ooo ona dees atom ees eee 2, 316, 453 | 2, 316, 453 
"LASS Bae eo ee ape eee on ey RPS ee ie et ie ee 2, 503, 924 | 2, 503, 924 
Bye so tee Mee ice en et ree eee eeu ae eee oe 49°40 22s scdeccaas 1, 907,688 | 2,150, 117 
oL DE SOR EEE ae eke tee enone ane Ne Ai ene ea PIBGON | csc sees 2, 806, 336 | 3, 085, 257 
i eas Beye ake ie ee, Carats 2 Aen AN: 294, 837 | 1,536,390 | 1,377,300 | 3, 208, 527 
7 RECESS ee sO a Ee ED 351, 889 | 1,801,217 855,509 3, 008, 615 
» RRS Seer SECT AN ie Bee Meee aCe pepe 271,597 | 1,503, 121 878, 530 | 2, 653, 248 

TT. 


Imports of fish and products of fish into the United States from British North America. 


Tp ERE REIS Ga ee ERD rae tn, EER es IPERS DORE SAE O EERSTE $2, 0.44, 629 
BONO ee cele eines ee acs tn denn rinse Nee Whew Sew Lawn rare ae stss seal oe 989, 344 
BN oe eae ti Suid wre ot < Sean Saag Aca eR La tees non can eansaeele pace” (1,505; 299 
ON pete ile ee es gas ogc ghee enue 1, 398, 505 
eS gD ta cree eae a meee nie c eFasiniaein aie Bi clon aie ure Comite csoe wet aoe a eelecueee 1, 383, 965 
eA Dee cta ay Pa ae om oe BORE Clone etek talc enn epNese bias mileeele oe 1, 400, 173 
BOC. cores poor e cg ce eoe cas sacie nsec coeiic ce: as eicciescanc ees ce ceeone's 1, 690, 617 
BO Aree eae aisle fale) caicla, = sicziee ainlaerelatie a avemaleiclaaioceieticaiseineiaaisales seam o> (ey hOSG uO 
ead ae rae Saree nee ore ete om cnr ae renie one sc bots sate hoes nase mmeuseee cnet: 2, 348, 641 
Pg Oy Sete ate Se ea re ae Wane Cate wis dae nae Ee eas eee see enrseeceeee *1, 862, 797 
E7740 MONTHS tO MaATCM ol cs sc2esscccscisce costes see Bese eaenee 1, 202, 616 


*The imports into the United States from British North America in 1876 appear to have been equal to 
ap Bai of the total exports from British North America for that year, which are officially reported 
as $5,501,221. 


Ill. 


Imports of fish into the United Slates from British North America, 


Dominion of Canada. Other British Possessions in B. N. A. 


| a ete oh a _ 
| Dutiable. Free. | ‘Total. |Dutiable. Free. | Total. ar B. 
| ee | ees re 
| 

5 ; 1, 003, 904 |.- 1, 003, 904 113, 853 |eeeeeeece: 3 1, 117, 757 


1, 003, 561 |... 1, 003, 561 | 135, 846 |.. 


994, 137 |.... 994, 137 | 207, 038 |.. 


1) 610, 722 46 | 167,725 | 167,771 | 1, 778, 493 


679, 825 | | 900, 808 | 340, 256 | 
1, 108, 366 | | 1,366,644 | 232, 348 | 
32, 714 1, 844, 902 70, 611 | 9, 
8, 895 | 1,906, 586 6,878 | 254,123 | 261,001 | 2, 167, 587 


eee ee ee ee ee 


3352 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


EVE. 


FISH OF ALL KINDS. 


Importations into the United States from British North America, 


Dutiable value. Duty. Duty saved. 
1845 to 1854. For the ten fiscal years before reciprocity. | : | 
AyHUal AVETNE ics ovals eee aues Ceara eee | $570,500 00 $113, 128 37 
1855 to 1866. During reciprocity. Annual average ........| 1, 462, 875 36 
1866 to 1872. For the six fiscal years after reciprocity. | 
ANRUSUAVOLRL Oe eca cass aecaee aca ne nee ce eeince sem sateetae | 1,170,650 00 277, 943 87 
1873) (freshs QTSii0T) eee saete sewc wec esse an aeseceene es | 1,340,714 00} 331, 843 00 
SIS oS OS SIG) hoa ce eeccue sciccs sec ns alcenece tecesc cece 1639" 48800) ooo osesaaok $335, 181 00 
PETO 1G aioe Ol BOO) ast ace os cee cease. eaeatioessee- weaem= aod 1, 815, 698 00 |....- Sesunetes 353, 200 00 
ACTEM Sd OTL HOT) sa een eae esc ee oe eens Seana | A DOG, Bb6 00 occs ace. 332, 421 00 
Vi 
MACKEREL AND HERRING.-—I. 
Quantity and value entering into annual consumption in the United States. 
Mackerel. Herring. 
Quantity. Value. Quantity. Value 
NOGS cee sen cs cen eeeeciesctckesewesas oscwenee. 30, 686 bbls. | $289, 175 61, 451 bbls. $288, 223 
BGO. comcniseswisicadeasiadcasscccsces saceasecScjacls ans 27,468 ‘* 306, 695 OL S67 es 425, 212 
NSIO. Seca 32 hecc cape ccctscesdsccucesecuusencassiosss 28,480 ‘ 291, 527 87,283 ‘‘ 398, 595 
NOs ee ete aa. ote Sane wnmewccaces erecta secse 28,487 “ 309, 074 62,022 ‘* 356, 759 
Neen ccede eee aso a seco e sl caos cece nema s nae 39,572 *‘ 247, 701 62,474 “ 332, 706 
IRidcuscue esate tars asec bee aaeasco secs asasecwas 70,651 ‘ 523, 577 63,497 ‘ 2 352, 235 
“ 82,826 ‘ 
NSIS os oesccesuccess anise sa nen eceonaetiacasceeees 90, 872 807, 089 205, 819 boxes 5 468, 669 
= Fi 98, 190 : 
AGUS. coe ote A eee ees 72,132 “ | 587,349 | 500) S49 boxes : 580, 196 
5 ose | 107: 319 bbls: = 
ONG cue int, Sena en seat ces 16,500 | G05, 917 | Sr tocee 3) 550, 722 
VI. 
MACKEREL AND HERRING.—II. 
Annual importation into the United States. 
Mackerel. | Herring. 
Quantity. Value. Quantity. Value 
AGUS frp rnscea see sedantadhsanaauesecacudccasiececn 79,227 bbis.| $449,624 | 78,217 bbls.| 384, 935 
1k Pee Oe are eee At oe re ee ES 90,889 ‘* 610,457 | 68,692 ‘ 359, 262 
BOTA, soe agatrien secs soonews bico<¥ snbeesenensndons os 89,693 “ 802,470 | 82,551 ‘ 434, 565 
ARs aeoceeeesees sees Siouble's's sb einetereciseoeeeuesee iS <= Joma 584,836 | 92,344 ‘“ 515, 084 
USI Roem eees ct hasan cst See ti ee ee 76,538 ‘* 695, 460 | 104,812 ‘* 493, 090 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3353 


VII. 
MACKEREL AND HERRING.—IIL. 


Annual importation into the United States from British North America. 


| Mackerel. | Herring. 
| 
| i | a 
/ | Quantity. Value. Quantity. Value. 
EES ee — |i 
Meera note tw cece ct aei wars escae ocisesee ee | 77,731 bbls. | $438,410 | 64, 200 bbls. | $225, 144 
ON IRS Ra AS eats ae ES | 99,698 605,778 | 53,039 179, 377 
MOR 520 ee ee sce cats cores see oeseo sees evscees | 99,693 * 802,470 | 63,931 “ 229, 522 
ORB Age otSsasesro tee. aisaco se Semone soaenee Teese. tt 584, 353 iy a Uy oe 295, 924 
ag Seaeane ens sams <necianerianessemakbeccs cee ems 76,538 695, 460 87,773“ 307, 384 
‘Nine months to Maren 1.000000 TIIIIIIIIE $) 3%190 | 336,582] 53,306 «| 186, 955 
VIII. 
MACKEREL. 


Imports into the United States from British North America. 


Value. | Duty. Duty saved, 

1848 to 1854. ; 
For the seven fiscal years before sealupecits: annual average..| $429, 898 28 $85, 979 65 jrtttersesee 

1855 to 1866. 
Durin ak reciprocity. saanene aces Secu maeeceyiee Hasso esac eteaeee eat et aweaddesmeasaeleeemosseaees 
er reciprocity. 
PPE MEE isis von dace seca ween eeees tesa eee edeel| 695598000. |). 155, 008/00) ls<ceeveceee. 
1868 - page eMC ee cede has Seale hae oat ae aes ROMs 364, 429 00 SIS10(00) eer ase cues 
DENN pac aseccd cosas co ctas cae iedcecwedes eves sas teedcaseieescice 438, 410 00 155, 462 00 |..... seocuce 
BN igsauaccecss «sdoeenc andeec wake secudsoeckeceseuweous cestesne 605, 778 00 179, 306) 00) |sanccesssecs 
PAvinualiaverage ca) a2 ¢sonseascaee sca se seads fase aeataes’ 521,151 00 | 143,294 00 94 00 | aoe eee ae 
BE SE DISS 60 O98 ten ctcae cence tsk eecme hte seccs cesses 802, 470 00 |..... aie awecs $179, 386 00 
1875. Oh SIT Ce lols ee ee ee eee IS eee Omer ers Dot Sos 00 |tosseoncesniced 154, 976 00 
1876. die (i a8: Re Vennudd ns aadsinamains Uvecie we acecaciceiaess es 695, 460 00 [eeeeeeeeeeeeee | 153, 076 00 
| | 

m4 "ANMUAM AV OLAVO Ausiee fac cer oo ates toca scans slewenas 694, 094 00 | Roce Garo case | $162, 479 00 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


3354 


Eee DLE OT OLS 

“* BLET 0} 998 
00 Sb ‘oe Sol ee OUR OF .GG8 
00 €OL‘EB tt" GBT OF 6b3 


00 FOS ‘OST 
00 O&F ‘OL 


I 
T 
\ 
I 


00 £16 SEES en nee ase oan ameeE 
00 OS9 ‘T. * GLET OF or 
00 08% 'S """V7""" 7" QUBT 09 GR 

00 scag mre" CCRT OF ive 


00 LaF ‘cos 
00 998 ‘LLL 
00 128 ‘GLB 
LS OBL ‘OBS 


teereeereseee= gor oF EraT 
“"" GLEL OF 998T 
rerstecreeeees OORT OF CORT 
teetereseeeess CORT OF CHT 


SHOVUTAV IVANNV 


00 00% ‘668% | CO ThL ‘OzRS 


8 b08 ‘IHG ‘ag 


00 000 ‘erI& | GT 80 ‘6OT% 86 G26 ‘GOP 


‘T#] 00 00L ‘e& | TE O10 ‘bH] 9 090 ‘NG 


00 00S ‘aca 


GG GBs ‘LOLS 


PL LOL ‘CLP ‘2g 


ee eee tee wens 


lew we www wwe 


eee www 


em ecerewcces| soemescccens 
| 


(poquurysa) 


poaus Aynq ‘Ayn 


[RIO L 


. 


00 818 ‘8 
00 61% ‘IST 
00 €Ob ‘16% 
00 08g ‘68 
00 986 ‘L 


00 000 ‘EhT 


OS £08 ‘FOT | 00 Gas ‘CoP 


69 Ebb ‘FS 


‘OnVA 


ee www wwe lw we www: 


went n ewes 


00 OOL‘E |" 


er ee er er 


“| 00 1% ‘FT 
00 9% 


00 6 


00 ££9 '% 


00 106 ‘6 
00 6L0 ‘G% 


9G 1b8 ‘9% 


ee 


Te 898 ‘TH 


00 00s ‘ecu 


(‘poqvuityso) 


poavs Aynq “Aqnq sige 


(poqvury}se) 


poavs Aynqg fos oRINA 


‘puv[s] PAVApyy ooULIg 


*puv[punoj MoN 


(poyeutyso) 
Reet Aynq 


“DAMIUP YON YS yrwuig wolf uojpsog fo 1407 AY} O7UL 8).Lodue 3.10.40 A 


“XI 


ewww e wwe wne 


00 OF8 ‘6% 
b% 608 ‘L0G 


ba TE ELT ‘OFS 


‘epuuUug 


Ce rt 


ee 


00 620 ‘FIG 
00 19F ‘808 
00 bLS ‘FOG 


re ORAL 
praia 7 4:) 


"77" §28T 
coenessasse gor 
GIy“ *" "=" CLRT 


iain VERE 


00 688 ‘PEE 
00 1&zL ‘06% | 
00 S6L ‘P90 ‘TL 
00 8€0 ‘100 ‘ 


BL 698 ‘LEO ‘tS 


| 


| 
“ONTVA, | 


Odi * 777778181 
"""* BLBT 049981 
90.15 9ORT 01 CORT 


77" CCRT 0} GRBT 


**** GC81 04 LEST 
"7" CCRT OF FST 


‘* 


X. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


3355 


STATEMENT OF DUTY SAVED ON FISH OILS IMPORTED INTO THE URETED STATES FROM 


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA, 


Duty Saved. 


S511, 067 867 —20 per cent., $62,373 40 


. > Dutiable Value. 
| pear Sowictan we tamate seine tsateeieteie cainetsieiwie ss aes $91,944 
Eis Sct eto sews toe APE eice Seaats semeis nse 1407400 
ERGs cis anton wircine ms Met aou esas Stein ewes eieeiwart $e, 400" 
Annual average is... sesesccen escee Rissanicstus iekee Seu sleneen 


XI. 
PORT OF BOSTON. 


coce seve $20,791 13 


Importation of fish of all kinds from British North America during the calendar years 1845 


to 1876. 
Value. | Duty. 

| 

1845 to 1855. For ten years prior to the reciprocity treaty, fraction of year | 
meauoted:: “ANNUAL SVOVALO- <2 2c0 5. 2 cctmsccessceeed reson veceeedaceewcccses $333. 932 14 | $67,533 31 
SEAMOBG VOR RESO s cccnnis ac cncmcinsssaccsetcsscnssonseccpe ss enecseenasen cs oo 127, 642 82 | 33,436 07 
Largest WOAD LAOS cose coe ssc othe scetcioesinneess isuess tuba secescuseoeuasweases 609, 270 00 | 123, 383 00 
1855 to 1866. During reciprocity. Annual average.......- 853, 914 62 | 7 

1866 to 1875. For nine years after the termination of treaty, fraction of year | 
BIUOLONS, OA TINUR AVERAQO® tr nee cps’ loco ss bys dds ne sine se neal oote eaweo en es 796, 732 55 | 101, 066 72 

SEEING GOAT Str Ots ce cates wens ee oo oaec ce ac eee eat rare teen een atce nee se ue 654, 366 00 


XII. 
PORT OF BOSTON. 


Importation of fish-oil Sra British North America adi 3 the calendar years 1845 to 1576. 


Value. Duty. 
1845 to 1855. For ten years prior to the reciprocity treaty, fraction of year | 
eeuctedl.. Annual RVOLAlO. (22252 5cscnbacetccesedeasieces estes sacs cnee ees é- $40, 686 95 | $8, 152 72 
MEMMMIBEG YOST: 1845 0-2 oan cee ce Sock So se Sawer ee ose Co cman tena es dec casuer ceca es 551 00 | 82 65 
BEERY VOGP 1G5e tras ssc. 5 - s acenlee 25s seaiese nce cee ewan aeeeees 1c seeanabele: 242,981 00 | 48,596 20 
manaal average, omitting 1852... ...-<---..-.--------0ce-noe connec nes scceenene 18, 209 83 3, 659 OL 
to 1866. uripg reciprocity. Annual average.....-.....-..-.----------- 138, 273 36 | 
1866 to 1875. For nine years after the termination of treaty, fraction of year 
Beuncod:, “Antiual'averave .: 2. .-2s2>-2s1cecctacciecsinsessscccescsesccdescous 110,014 00 | 17,468 21 
NEO UNE PSIG oe nes Ss Sook cba tates cies a uann gest face eeeyensbeaes 46, 811 00 | 


XIII. 


Export of fish from the United States to British North America. 


Domestic. 


>: 


bi 


3356 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


XIV. a5 


Exports of fish from the United States to the Dominion of Canada and to the other provinces 
of B. N. America. 


Canada. | Other provinces, B. N | 
| | Total. } 
| 5 
Foreign. ‘Domestic. Total. | Foreign. |Domestic.| Total. | | 
1 aaa Sane eee aren Maa aane ts emp pens SPEER ier teen Wit nen us It ees $69,163 
PEGS eo ass oo nd ose wesac eset eeent oaeee Re Aa EA emma Ee peaarc el Meare Nereis | 32, 331 
PRG! 522 Sec fe 222 crane deen osee ee 16,311 | 19,999 | 36,310 907 3,354} 4, 261 40, 571 
WSO sces Poets ast ccneeeeeed 38, 228 41, 423 yi eg by 1, 476 6, 271 7, 747 87, 458 
TSG sc Soo eGet ewe os eces cas eccisets 84, 821 33, 564 | 118, 385 | 1, 185 4,513 | 5,698 124, 083 
DST2 22.25 eee 34, 499 20, 467 966 2, 551 10, 576 | 13, 127 68, 093 
WSS) c2cbsc tevccess cseassceeesac= 63, 527 6, 452 69, 979 2, 526 ag 9, 746 79, 723 
TS74522 5. sc Pocems cccsewcsacceses , 84 30, 286 79, 133 2, 889 1,803 | 4,692 83, 825 / 
1815 aso seecsessscccese sixsae cen 18, 897 36, 591 55, 488 6, 231 5,149 | 11, 380 66, 868 
TSIG eo ca utes eee co eeeeew ses 24, 074 142, 901 | 166,975 574 7,350 | 7,924; 174,899 
1877, 9 months to March 31 .....).-----..-.|----------|-------22- |e een eee ne] ee eeee ee |e eee ee: | 121, 264 | 
| g94g,085 | | 
XV. | 
| 
PRODUCT OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES EXCEPT THE WHALE. oa | 
TS Oboe Sas Rose wee eet his oes scc ne chal ewe eee eee awe 5, 313, 967 | 
ford Veer ease Salssh Sdacee cosusseuee sects eace misses seeees 11, 482, 410 | 
NST 2 coc coc mwcics cece cciescwescs cas ebee cos saee pee enemes sacs 9, 526, 647 | 
NSLS Ses See sees he eats Saadeh os en ea tee garners tte 8, 348, 185 
EDU Se cpiedceietlaceanwes Snes oe waiana dom aes tae aaa e ae eee eee OTe Tae 
ISIS 5 = chasrpiccke seacatisncssnawaes -sanaeeme se ceees tase ees 10, 747, 579 
WS(Gis2 tes anu ne ewcine Sloe ew oe ace eine siniceee cece SUS Nees eae 10, 545, 871 
AunualvAverages sce 3252 5-6 Sao sacs acces ee eiace ee aee sees 9, 353, 316 


XVI. 


YIELD AND VALUE OF THE CANADIAN FISHERIES 


The following figures are taken from the annual reports of the Canadian Minister of 
Marine and Fisheries. 


' 
1870-26 o: Hstimate, woos. cece eee see ee eee $7, 000, 000 
j koe Mae DOS ee a eg ee 8, 000, 000 
| boy pete Returivet = soc erect tess eos See eee 9, 570, 116 
1S7S* s2< SAA Ov Wie eels ae eee a eee eae eee Psat 10, 754, 988 
1874 co e<% Os. Weer see es oe eae es Se 11, 681, 886 
187522222 G0. Booesea eee. Bho Salon See ne eee ae Bieweass 10, 347, 886 
1eeG hoes oe GOs, 325225 Bd ee wae an ceise Panos ee er 11, 019, 451 


* See feo for 1871, page 60. 


XVII. 
Exports of fish from British North America. 


Total ex- | Tothe United 
ports. States. 


$1, 616, 663 
1, 641, 828 
1) 475, 330 
MACKEREL. 
ISio, niximontha: ended: Deoial. cc ccc en coe ee ee Le ee 475, 280 405, 638 


4 


- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3357 


. XVIII. 


Table showing the statistics of the manufacture of menhaden oil and guano in the United States 
in the years 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876. 


| 1873. 1874 1875. 1876. 

No. of factories in operation ............--..-.. 62 64 60 64 
No. of sail-vessels employed...............-.. 383 283 304 320 
No. of steam-vessels Ute cemactasican cr snn ce 20 25 39 46 
No. of men employed in fisheries .-............ | 1, 009 Ril. i eccesacdreney\ponsucsuaae ° 
No. of men employed in factories .............., 1, 197 PSOt) voces cee wicanaltancosceamms 
Total number of men employed.......-......- 2, 306 2, 438 2, 633 2, 758 
Amount of capital invested.................... | $2, 388, 000 $2, 500 000 $2,650,000 | $2, 750, 000 
Bravnts fal taken ests 225 oe 8a esos eee oceans 397, 700, 000 | 492, 878,000 | 563, 327, 000 | 512, 450, 000 

‘‘ is ss (estimated in barrels) ......-. 1, 193, 100 1, 478, 634 1, 887, 767 1, 535, 885 
No. of gallons of oil made...................... 2, 214, 800 3, 372, 837 2, 681, 487 2, 992, 000 
No. of tons of guano made ...................-. 36, 299 | 50, 976 53, 625 51, 245 
No. of gallons of oil held by manufacturers at 

RNG CIC, OL thay CATs cos 5 xs cis iereisiscreiais tenes 484, 520 648, 000 125, 000 264, 000 
No. of tons of guano held by manufacturers at 

Bho Cbd Ol GNOVGAP. ot scenes oasis cod sce c ss 2, 700 5, 200 1, 850 7, 25 
MOAUOOf ORE S10 soci salve cis'esisset's'snasicccsses $819, 476 $1, 247, 950 $992,140 | $1, 107, 040 
MGING OL PRANO AL. SLI: acescccsssisccasececceces $399, 199 $560, 736 $589, 875 $503, 695 
Total value of manufactured products .......-. $1, 218, 675 $1, 808, 686 $1, 582,015 | $1, 670, 735 


Total number of menhaden annually taken on the coast of the United States, estimate 750,000,000. 

In 1874 one company, on the coast of New Jersey, put up 30,000 dozen boxes of menhaden in oil, 
under the name of ‘‘American sardines,” the value of which was, at least, $90,000. 

On the coast of New England thirty-five decked vessels, and numerous small ones, engage in the bait 
fishery, the catch of which approximates 100,000 barrels annually, worth from $100,000 to $130,000. 


I, Hamilton Andrews Hill, of Boston, in the County of Suffolk and 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, being duly sworn, do hereby depose 
and declare that I was Secretary of the Boston Board of Trade from 
1867 to 1873, and of the National Board of Trade of the United States 
from its organization in 1868 to 1873, during which time I was con- 
stantly engaged in studying the trade of the United States and other 
countries, and have had much experience in compiling statistics, and 
that I have compiled the series of tables hereto annexed relating to the 
fisheries and the trade in fish between the United States and British 
North America, and that they are correct to the best of my belief. These 
tables are numbered from one (1) to seventeen (17) respectively, Num- 
bers (1) one to (8) eight and (10) ten and (13) thirteen to (15) fifteen, 
were compiled from the annual volumes on Commerce and Navigation 
issued by the Bureau of Statistics at Washington, and from special 
tables relating to the Fisheries and the Fish trade, prepared under the 
direction of Dr. Young, Chief of that Bureau. 

Number nine (9), eleven (11) and twelve (12) were compiled from state- 
ments made up at the Custom House in Boston. Number sixteen (16) 
was made up from the Annual Reports of the Canadian Minister of Ma- 
rine and Fisheries. 

Number seventeen (17) is imperfect, and the figures which it contains 
have been taken from such Canadian authorities as I have had access 
to, and from Official Reports furnished to the State Department at 
Washington by the Consul General of the United States at Montreal, 
and the American Consul at Halifax. 

Number two (2) shows the annual importation of Fish and fish pro- 
ducts into the United States from British North America, from 1867 to 
1877. Number seventeen (17) gives partial returns of the Exports of 
the same commodities from British North America to the United States. 
It will be noticed that in the corresponding years, the values returned 
in the Canadian tables of fish exported to the United States are not the 
equivalent to those given in the American tables of fish imported from 


Canada, as it might seem that they should be. This, however, is in 


3358 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. , 
| 
| 


concordance with what is usually observable in comparing the trade re- 


ports of any two countries with each other. The export returns of the 
one always vary from the import returns of the other, and usually the 
value of the former appears as less than thatof the latter. The reason 
for this is that the returns of exports are usually made up from ships 
manifests and similar documents, often hastily and imperfectly made 
up; but on the arrival of a cargo at its destination, when it becomes an 
import, and perhaps liable to duty, itiscarefully and specifically reported 
upon Custom House entries with complete invoice attached. The re- 
turns of the authorities in the importing country are generally accepted 
therefore, as showing the true course of trade. 

Number four (4) shows the amount saved in duties on fish imported 
into the United States from Canada, under the provisions of the Treaty 
ot Washington, to average annually for the three years 1874 to 1876, 
about three hundred and forty thousand dollars ($340,000.00.) These 
figures are the result of careful estimates. 

Numbers thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) show the American exports 
of Fish, of both domestic and foreign production to the Dominion of Can- 
ada, and to the other Provinces of British North America, from 1867 
to 1877. These returns will be found'to vary from the corresponding 
returns of Canadian import, (which do not appear at all in these tables) 
very much more than the American returns of imports vary from the 
Canadian returns of exports, to which reference has already been made, 
and for the additional reason that a very large part of the fish sent from 
the United States into Canada, goes by rail, and is not reported at all 
at any American Custom House, while it is of course entered at a Can- 
adian Custom House, as soon as it has crossed the frontier. 

Numbers thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) show the value of fish taken 
out of bond in the United States to be exported to Canada, and that 
which is shipped by vessels clearing at American ports. I have marked 
with my name the several volumes and returns used in the preparation 
of these tables, and the same are certified to by Alfred D. Foster, 
Notary Public, before whom my oath to this affidavit is made. 

(Signed) HAMILTON ANDREWS HILL. 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSESTS, 
Boston, June 8th, 1877. 
SUFFOLK, 8. S. 


Then personally appeared the above named, Hamilton Andrews Hill, 
and made oath that all the foregoing statements by him subscribed are 
true of his own personal knowledge, except so far as they depend upon 
information and belief, and those be believes to be true, before me, 

(Signed) ALFRED D. FOSTER, 
Notary Public. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3359 


I. f 
Numbers and Tonnage of Vessels of the United States employed in the 
Cod and Mackerel Fisheries from 1866 to 1876, inclusive. 


APPENDIX O. 
il. 


TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
REGISTER’S OFFICE, 
Washington, D.C., September 5th, 1877. 
PURSUANT to Section 886 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, 1, W. P. Titcomb, Acting Register of the Treasury Department, 
do hereby certify that the annexed is a correct statement of the tonnage 
of the United States employed in the cod and mackerel fisheries in the 
years indicated, as shown by the records of this office. 
W. P. TITCOMB, 
Acting Register. 


BE IT REMEMBERED, That W. P. Titcomb, Esq., who certified the 
annexed transcript, is now, and was at the time of doing so, Acting 
Register of the Treasury of the United States, and that full faith and 
eredit are due to his official attestations. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I, John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury 
of the United States, have hereunto subscribed my name, and caused 
to be affixed the Seal of this Department, at the City of Washington, 
this fifth day of September, in the year of our Lord 1877. 

[L. 8.] JOHN SHERMAN, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


STATEMENT shewing the number and tonnage of vessels of the United States. employed in 
the cod and mackerel fisheries from 1866 to 1876, inclusive :— 


, Vessels above 20 | Vessels under 20 
tons. | tons. | Total. 
Years. _— Seay parma eee 
| 

|e2No | Tons. | No. Tons. No. | Tons 

| | et eae pee 
1866 (new adm’t) ..............---- tehayse dae | 42, 796, 28 ee a SW Reece | 51, 140, 16 
2866 (old adm’t) ................-.- Wea ine ets ieee cen coins Bae mortice DOS fodae ee cea 503, 88 
Re ann oa ken eeise at mieosg seacaaes see merits | 36, 708, 62 nee Bae 04 BOG) OF eacciceces 44, 566, 66 
SASS eee ee 1, 467 |, 74, 762, 92 753 9, 123, 95 1, 220 83, 886, 87 
MPR eo coe cee cite fia giaaes se ente's } 1,093 | 55, 165, 43 | 621 7, 538, 82 1,714 62, 704, 25 
1 RES a Se Sree aaa Saar 1,561 | 82, 612, 27 731 8, 847, 72 2, 292 91, 459, 99 
RR co oh ete Fini acts cows 1,563 | 82, 902, 43 | 863 9, 963, 04 2, 426 92, 865, 47 
MIM ESS oe nee tanec eaaceac en eeceee | 1, 486 | 8&7, 403, 08 899 10, 143, 48 2, 385 97, 546, 56 
ARS RBS oe ee ee ee ee ee 1, 558 99, 541, 58 | 895 9, 976, 73 2, 453 109, 518, 31 
DUES ew acawide crs cisco wenebewswcces| 1,230 | 68, 489, 62 869 9, 200, 39 2, 099 78, 290, OL 
DS ete ane A te eran aa ! 1,259 | 62, 703, 16 929 11, 503, 52 2, 188 80, 206, 68 
BAe Pe aa ee ae re 1, 383 | 77, 313, 92 | 928 10, 48x, 21 2,311 87, 802, 13 


3360 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


2 


Ill. 
Statistics prepared by Mr. Goode. 
ELE: 


I, George Brown Goode, of the City of Washington, in the District of 
Columbia and United States of America, being duly sworn, do depose 
and say that I am the Assistant Curator of the United States National 
Museum, and for the last eight years I have been engaged in studying 
the natural history and habits of the fishes of the North Atlantic Coast, 
and during the last six years 1 have been an assistant to the United 
States Fish Commission, and during that time it has been part of my 
employment to collect and arrange statistics as to the amount of the 
fish taken on the coast of the United States,—that the tables hereto an- 
nexed were compiled from statistics and returns made from the differ- 
ent fishing towns of the Northern Atlantic States to the United States 
Fish Commission, and that the same are true to the best of my knowl- 
edge and belief; that the prices stated of the various kinds of fish, are 
actual prices as paid for said fish in Fulton Market, New York City,— 
that the table marked XVIII, (see Part I, Appendix QO), entitled: 
‘Table Showing Statistics of the Manufacture of Menhadden Oil and 
Guano in the United States, in the years 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876,” was 
also compiled by me from the returns of the United States Fish Com- 
mission, and that the same is true to the best of my knowledge and 


belief. 
GEORGE BROWN GOODE. 


PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA, 
COUNTY OF HALIFAX, ss. } 
HALIFAX, October 10th, 1877. 
Then personally appeared the above-named George Brown Goode, and 
made oath that the foregoing affidavit, by him subscribed, is true to the 
best of his knowledge and belief, before me, 
L. G. POWER, 


Notary Public. 
ESTIMATED TOTAL OF AMERICAN FISHERIES FOR 1876, 
Consolidated table of sea-fisheries east of Cape May.........---..------- 13, 030, 821 
ibake ‘fisheries ‘in 1872/(Milneér)).s<..vc,cccces 55-552 oeee coe ecses ee ee eee 1, 600, 000 
Productsof ‘whalofisherys 2.4. oss 24 eer ee cree eee 2, 737, 379 
$17, 368, 200 


This is exclusive of all river fisheries; of the river fisheries of sal- 
mon, shad, alewives and striped bass; of the coast fisheries south of 
Delaware Bay (Mullet, Bluefish, Menhadden, ete.); of all the Pacific 
coast fisheries, (salmon, cod, haddock, ete.); of the shell-fish (oysters, 
clams, ete.); of the Crustaceans (lobsters, crabs, ete.) ; of sponges, of 


= 
ton 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3361 


skins, of fur, and other seals, and of their oil. For these thirty millions 
of dollars ($30,000,000) is considered to be a reasonable estimate. 


WEIRS AND TRAPS. 


Men 

Barth: Bide.0f O8N0! COO encase cioceu sCsseclave ss dcectelsecreseaes 8) 88 
Martha's: VANCVArG BOUNG oo: 2-2 6 cccassibencicsns Snismasicicanesiseces.s 9 36 
MUSPATC AI DBV coasts > = ceisorials clic eter heeisisttenais ese cic se camels ce 30 90 
MPG RP URI AN Ger catec ds ccc clos calcce ieee stam sets sede meee sc enecccse seis 3 12 
POR ADNOUL OAS; s~cuwnsveen.ocvyednavie cone seacecdadare sas awen 30 =—-210 
SPEROR G cise cateratriciiaaear ss vee rie wantacnectin auensieteleesinneesstece~ es 100 — 14 

100 9 14.436 

211 F 


3362 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


PRODUCTS of Marine Fisheries 


INSHORE FISHERIES, 
Or Fisheries Conducted from the Shore. 
| § | Wholesale | $ | Retail $ Mean 
—) Oo 2 
Pounds. | =| Value. |= | Value. | =| Value. 
= an = 
Flounders and Flatfish............-..-- 1, 827, 000* 4 73, 080*| 8 146, 160*| 6 109, 620+ 
Halibut (fresh) BEPC ED oer hee oe ea hore peceoleccete dees oe are | seeeeeecsas2 weeC [tote coede 
INOW WOOL. scene ceecdenfocsacs somes iae aufne ne cca ntl tec oles ean SEA Geuwaa soca 
“« (cured) Gloucester, &c., flitches.|...........- fasuciiscceswsgeen| coll osseaneeenes ei oe Ses seer 
We ane Soa saus Saeviauaee we ee eee asa | aoe teeta eee pices liomcoasiasse esse \eceames seats she leas Selby 2 
pte NBDCSiss sos Roce a ces ne swiaemace Sales eas sees Pd eee eee cere BEE cer eae 2 SS See 
Cod (fr esh) INOW MORE: sc 5scnceeacicen ces 5,000,000 5 250,000 |; 8 | 400,000 | 63 325, 000 
‘* — Gloucester, Boston, &c..... 20, 000,000", 3 600,000 | 5 1,000,000 | 4 800, 000 
20; 000)| 224 esoree poe toe es loeuese Sess 1} 379, 733 
000, «1 800 | 22) 1,800 | 13 1, 300 
i 3 3,000 | 8) &,000 | 53 5, 500 
3 7,500.; 3 | 12,500; 4 10, 000 
8 49, 244 | 15 | 92,332 114 70, 788 
38 278, 480 | 15 522, 150 | 113 400, 315 
CUTOD cess iscsecoseos tees cele a5 wenne ones tees ez cesses |e ne) puss ea eee ee dlee Oe ee ae a 
Sik a Mackerel:i- 22.2. sccceecesess 105,000 25 | , 250 30 | 31,500 | 274 28, 875 
Bonitocosc: fueesc ss ean eee Sessa) 2,200,000 5! 110,000) 8| 176,000] 63] 143,000 
POm panne cass ses eee e wens ote ecmeee ee 5,000 60 | 3,000 100 | 5,000 | 20 4, 000 
Swordfish)222 7225. ces ccsccse es canes 1,500,000 | 7) 105, 000 | 15 | 225, 000 | 11 165, 000 
Buttertish, Whiting, White Perch...... 50,000 | 4 | 2,000; 8 4,000 | 6 3, 000 
Sea Robins 90,000 | 2 | 1,800 | 3 2,700 | 2% 2, 250 
Squeteague 1, 727,600 | 6 103, 656 | 10 172,760 | 8 138, 208 
OTIS ee Seats ace aesisea ce eee 10,000 | 15 1,500 | 25 2,500 | 20 , 000 
Spotiand'Croaker:226-2255222-2ee% 20056 75,000 | 5 3, 750 | 10 7,500 | 73 5, 625 
Sheepshead. 2... csc sc cescccc ceases 75,000 | 15 11, 250 | 20 15, 000 | 173 13, 1235 
UD! oe oes dewsiee owe lessee secon. 7, 760, 000 | 05 328,000 | &§ 620,800 63} 504, 400 
Bed Basses csc see eee estas 598,500 10 59,850 | 15 &9, 775 | 123 74, S123 
Striped Bite /2..5.20ssen5 sees sascs cess: 123,200 15 18,480 20 24,640 | 175 21, 560 
Bluefish 1 8 565, 440 | 6 424, 080 
SMOG: 2 sacs sacs acasen acse eee ue econ 15 | 60,000 | 123 50, 000 
eee beer pacer eee BAe Secteeces s 
Eee oes fae 18 45,000 | 15 37, 500 
Sturgeon 10 7, 500 73 5, 625 
Sea Sh 13 282,765 | 62 235, 637} 
Salmon sce, feces easecet ets Jol |ssascescos=x 
Alewife af 73, 8&0 z 59, 3874 
Herring 1, 604, 800 4 64,192 | 3 48, 144 
e (cared)-2.<- aes ee cee ual onoet ise nstadtceteleese be Sheba case asulvecueseweuse paecheseceecaceaa 
319, 579, 950 $2, 710, 641 $4, 658, 864 $4, 064, 484 
Ratio to mile of coast line.-....-. PBT G02) jess aisasaasccesce Bee eee wescaee Bar $3, 655 
(1, 112) | 
{ 
N.B—The cured cod have been restored to their greeu weight (three times as much). The salted 


mackerel have been restored to their green weight (one-sixth additional). 


a a eee 


of Northern Atlantic States. . 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


3363 


OFFSHORE FISHERIES, 
Or Fisheries Conducted in large vessels, principally over 
Twenty Tons. 


Aggregate of | Aggregateof 
Saal al Ss ee Weights. Valnes. 
8 | Wholes’le | 8 | Retail | $ Mean 
Pounds. |= | “value. |£| Value, |= | Value. 
Aa | a ay 
| 
| 
Be evaitesens 1, 827, 000 09, 620 
12,339,000] 4 493,560 | 15 1,850,850 | 94] 1,172,205 |..............-. 1, 172, 205 
1,0€0,000] 10 100,000 | 15 | 150,000 | 124, 125,000 |................ 125, 000 | 
8,476,000} 2 169,520]... | 302500]... | 236,010 |................ 236,010 \ $1,546, 240 
200,000] 54 10,500] 74 15,000] 68} 12,750 |.............-.. 12, 750 | 
10, C00 22, 025, 000 15 
Bowe <= Se ears | Boca [scot otce cass Paes [cose soul renal dae ceoreneed lesacee as ar ossces 325, 000 
TE yl RR ed a Fee) Ree eras ener (ee Sk Sey £00, 000 
160, 641, 700 214, 221, 700 3, 698, 915* 
20, 100, 000 625 
f. 100, 000 5, 500 
it 250, 000 10, C00 
i. 615, 550 70, 788 
2, 615, 000 6, 096, 000 701, 040 
35, 632, 900 35, 632, 900 1, 674, 222* 
105, 000 875 
2, 200, 000 143, 000 
5, 4, 000 
1, 500, 000 165, 000 
50, 3, 000 
90, 2, 250 
1, 727, 600 138, 208 
10, 000 2, 000 
75, 000 5, 625 
75, 000 13, 125- 
7, 760, 000 504, 400 
598, 500 74, 812 
123, 21, 560 
7, 068, 000 424, 080 
A See, 00, 000 50, 000 
703, 746, 500 1, 657, 790f 
Bone 250, 0 37, 500 
75, 000 5, 625 
3, 770, 200 235, 637 
40, 100 8, 020 
7, 385, 000 55, 387 
5, eee 48, 144 
Peete 22, 328, 700 459, 833° 
1, 045, 855,750 | $13, 030, 821 
940, 510 $11, 718 


* From Report of Bureau of Statistics. 


+ From oflicial reports. 


3364 


tember 30th, 1877. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


CustToM-HousE, Boston, Mass., 
Collector's Office, October 9th, 1877. 


Statement of the importations of mackerel into the port of Boston, January 1st, 1877, to Sep- 


Nova Scotia and New Bruns- Prince Rdward Telank: 
wick. 
From. 
Bbls. Value. Bbls. Value. 

IST SADUALY soosociewcenseccce seater ss scemniaie 3, 867 $42, 521 00 

@DEUATY. <5 <2 oie lsrecineie Seis aecleieie's sisicis.eie'= wie 858 7, 685 00 

MALTON oes a cecceascat a anmeeemeciane sea ae 5874 5, 720 00 |... 

IACDUll-vosce sees seas sccetiae steer cralescjyaere es 53 39500! | se= 

Mai iicrectatiee tres cssecencctecemase: 5173 3, 188 00 

DUNG cece ec eee oute ee ro eens dee 4,730 28, 626 00 

DULY, See succes aacleninastesoteeine sae cleeicioma 5, 9724 31, 235 00 

AUP OSU ca-condqcsmesacetecs Sasiesemenee 6, 1514 44, 375 00 

MONUOMUCE wos clesceiccisieceseccceaacluesass 13, 8864 114, 952 00 6, 3614 66, 001 00 

Ue at ae ede eae suuaee eestor 36,576 | $278, 341 00 14,5494 | $132, 677 00 

ee ee j 


No importations of mackerel from Newfoundland. 


Boston CusTtoM-HOusE, 
Oollec:or’s Office, October 17, 1877. 


I hereby certify the foregoing statements to be true, as appearing upon the records of this office. 
" §L. 6.] J. M. FISKE, 
Asst. Dept. Collector. 


Be 


Statement taken from the Books of Gloucester Firms,—produced by Mr. 
Babson,—filed by Mr. Foster on October 24, 1877, and objected to by the 
British Counsel as not being properly verified, and therefore inadmissible 
as evidence, but admitted by Commissioners for what it may be worth. 


I, BENJ. F. BLATCHFORD, an Inspector of Customs, for the Dis- 
trict of Gloucester, on oath, do depose and say, that at the request of 
Hon. Dwight Foster, I visited the fishing firms of this city, and re- 
quested from them a statement, taken from their books, of the number of 
vessels employed in the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fisheries, and 
the number of Bay mackerel packed by them each year, from 1866 to 
1877. Also the same statistics in regard to the United States shore 
mackerel fishery, and annexed I send a true copy of their several re- 


ports made to me marked A, B, We. 
BENJ. F. BLATCHFORD. 


MASSACHUSETTS, EssEx, SS. 
Personally appeared, said Blatchford, who made oath to the truth of 


the above affidavit. Before me, 
AARON PARSONS, 
Justice of the Peace. 


3365 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
David Low § Co.’s statement. 


Lid oo »” ~ Ort th + i—] 
SSERSELRSSER 7 ; | BEEESSSSRS | SSSBSBSSER3S 
qeyog, | hate et deseo oe” s © "JaAoyounat en ee ‘aro yorur SF ieldlelelpintal 
3 Pais) e10ys jo ‘sida es e10oys $jo “BIqVg 
wom R~ 
———— | as z 
ARV cen ” S63 ID © 19 IQ tH elo 
“poxoud [oroyoum SSZSSRSRERE z a3 “10 HovUT ESSSERRE5 ced *[o19yovu RSARSBSSLA2R 
euoys jo ‘siqq | 7 aisiciadaas 2 Avq jo ‘s1qq nae doa a PI Avq jo ‘sqq a wt 
SOQOrrn TNw0 o 4 MAwecwTWMOwrNMo | D TFMWOM FO FHOHFOM 
*poyoud Jaro youu a g = S R Fa 3 3 x R © a a “o1048 baal (e000 ‘9.1048 > at Se vee 
keq yo sqq | Aa ces aa 8 é JOSTOssoa Jo ‘ON YoReesoa Jo ON 
A ss ee a | ee 
WrOCHOHKM ARI 110 = OHPOMMMAR HHO 
. ONTDrOWTNnIS *Avq a es ou pe “Kuq ” sii 
“e108 4¥ S[OSsOA JO ‘ON § Ul S[OSS9A JO ‘ON 
JO Spossea Jo ‘ON ° 3 
~ Ge ae res & TER ET Be 
ora etearenaene o ga paced seeaen < Roa ee gee ac 
re mona oN 37 HLH? | @« seb Gesn eg. 
So —/F 3 #8 tee a a rarer > 2 a aie ares ta ee . 
Poor a Mee ae ea Ge gs Bae ool ‘2 °P ey sears se SEL UENS 
CRA es Wi et COM ON Tai ay Te Py = Ss ae Te RT Dan ea Yoo Sime IM Peer yee s © i, Oc aw G68 et Keri. Cute r 
Sue cee h Rerdce re, tig Dane Peer Mis Set er ga a = 3 shee WAS cece ote sy : 
Seyi her eee Piibiriiis rar peor Mains 
i Sid ean a a = Oa Le a i ae ee ea ti 
ey gt at rae a Cee ta rg tra et ae Pa oH SU wana ais ois 
PEAS acer hs aac a ea 2 RO ae eae SS tears hy aa 
na rage ea ir a= me ponte a cat § Pees he 
ame 9 ES Seer ae eae S hee ae 
yee e pete oy Bn g coca came pe” : one 7 
F sae Donen ce gen INE Ne Pitdiigigs | ig iit ae 
“ ea eine oat ae ae a Deb pub tetetoton st pa ee ae 
H Sie eae er ee ie er rece ener : eG 
Fo Siete a Stinaiay ae Bae : Pra era aaries agt a : abe 
Piitiiiiiti i [8 PiGbiiiiii ae 
peace rae es brie PS ce te Uk hao ae 
Le mt a eae a 2 Serre eee k Supa es : ce . 
eS Ta ar Nar a a ha Ge 3 Tat Beer ae eta a : one 
Piet: te SRR eee eee f Bt 
nd ot 2 SA ON MOHIOR SOS SA8 T= 
: oO 
a3 BS Z2RESRERES z EG 


oe » rene lngin 


‘AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


5366 


. 
t 


C.—Wm. Parsons, 2d, § Co.’s statement. 


They fit 14 vessels. 


*[odo youu OLOYs 
JO “S1QQ JO "ON 


‘joao yovut Avq 
JO “BIVT JO ‘ON 


‘S() 10s 
{JO 8[AB8OA JO ‘ON 


ba ee ’ . ’ 
- DOI NM ‘ 
BLSSSBSSAR ii: 
SORASHAGAR 1 ss 
Pek et ee ey ‘ 
OQ eS ere beara 
‘ H ‘ 
Canta 


ARNO MAM O HO 


“OD UAL 
“MUTT “VS Jo vq 
UL B[OBSOA JO ‘ON 


SHOOMMAWH | 


Years. 


D.—Alfred Mansfield’s statement. 


They fit 9 vessels. 


in Onl Ne 
. SSS ReRESSES | 
[9.10 ,OVUL ACHASHA oda: 
oLoys JO “sIQE ‘ 
SES iP HRB: 
*[o.L9/OUUL TSI eG ere Oat 
Avq jo “81d Seite eae 
Aa a As 
AOnMS MM WMI HGN 

rene 


01048 
JJO S[OB8OA JO "ON, 


*AUq 
UL S[OB8OA JO ‘ON 


AMMOOCRNOSMMAHON 
‘ 


Years. 


Tk Le Ee a ee ee ee eg 


E.—B. Maddock’s statement. 


[They fit 10 vessels.) 


[O10 yOvUE 
aONsS JO “SIqg 


*TO.19 OVUL 
Avq jo ‘81d 


*oL0q8 
YO S[O8B8OA JO ‘ON 


“Aq 
UL S[O88OA JO ‘ON 


(Orn THAAMOSM 


Years. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3367 


F.—D. C. § H. Babson’s statement. 


(They fit 13 vessels. ] 


| cs mB 4 
2 z an ae 
= 2 ee S-3 
@ . H 5 z z 
r Years. cs é E Sg oer] 
iS ie g z 
Ss |e" |. 8 | 38 
° 
Z Z Fa = 
MOD pauses aac Nk wads cess sass etccsnwansceneeceraabcesnaecsneans 9 nf 3, 246 356 
YS et et rr ae Wai os Ra bao pweaeroneh seen saeeinoes 6 3 1, 620 834 
OSs is Sie aielelscisicies a swig ons cale pin'sieucen a cassie Juncsaaacanem cn nenaies 3 5 475 916 
; 1869..... Sin sie ate Sie ala aha alanis sc nvate ci-teie anne een Asie pelea iene aieacieets 6 3 904 587 
Doo URE AG Sa CABG OSU OO SOD BORUCOSET NCOP DOH Taser =ine sree penceeisct soe 3 8 500 3,115 
Beet l caeee ene aan aware ca aeanteaon baa enive osc mmeeewecase get acee eed 3 6 887 1, 420 
EPID nos anno vin n's oueeas'éeisisinia's sein sic x, esin aictawbomelsiacicn oeevelds cows ee es 1 3 380 1, 005 
ER ey te Dat? 2g sey see ea Su Soca pas Peace cenawaines 4 3 1,110 1, 395 
(yf Ra ae ee Resse Seer eaaoaescied vieisis wal nse nclsise cea sce sembiecie acne 1 5 270 2, 043 
IS BAS eee Rae wees Satalamacwe esas <eesincl akon al@ane sen eeeeees 3 5 642 1, 288 
BIG oem tin ica Se Bet Oey ek Seay bh ee ees 0 is eee es 3, 977 
EDA Gioaton etecine sce oe scons Samiasicn a waves geeeackbenecsna seer ote 1 4 138 679 
G.—Statement of Perkins Brothers. 
{They fit 9 vessels. ] 
a 5 loos Sa 
D = .2 =z 
i) 3 PE} 23 
e5 | 22) 34 23 
Years. Ps os a g 
ei 2 ar “se on | 
3 3° ee ee 
6 é es es 
A A mi Ae 


ale eweeee- 


1 6 203 3, 712 
5 6 926 2, 350 
2 3 402 440 
3 4 435 1,315 
3 4 1, 035 2, 596 
1 3 205 1, 082 
3 2 211 1, 655 
0 2 | None.... 520 


| 
H.—Statement of Hardy § McKenzie. 


[They fit 6 vessels. ] 


=) & al 2 
col S e & 
2 2 ar A 
7) o¢ £ CH 
@ >, gs uo i 
o ) ° 

Years. $s $4 is et 
co on 1 
i) ° ae ae 
é 6 ir) 2 
A A ==) fo) 


w 


eT 
3368 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Pes 
I.—Statement of William C. Wonson. 
[He fits 8 vessels. ] 
x: g & g 
A 3 Cus an 
oO -*] o a2o 
ay eS wm & 3 
Years. os é E oa Sx 
Se Se s 3s 
va : Za 2a 
Ss Ss ea) a) 
A A a) = 
T8662 os cbsecsdccinccs se tesseicensNsSesaceeos os stwcewe desauessesss 0 4 0 722 
TSG Co eee anc lence aca ce nent ce census senscess cane gectwoenttaniecss == 0 3 0 267 
AQGR Sose = hs e2 te ee occ hea nol oases eta iaceeee sees 0 2 0 262 
NSBS ses ese heats oe ee celpac see saae pees Ueceaereeeaseae 2 4 301 922 
AOU ae coco och cacos sue gtcceeseceawbesaccrecasnascee sme eteyscos ve 0 i 0 1, 646 
SUL eucaaseansaaise nec sees aeamiccarenos tacweeee ese eceene ce cease 0 5 0 846 
BSc crctes ence ecleniheamiome cincitinan)o s\oieinoisielen ca sila Mefeaie cme eee ner 3 4 818 749 
ANTS csn Soe tonne as pessoas sepa dise vee sd aismoaine sce’ sien vaccines sslow, 2 2 492 233 
STE eo re sets erteee aaa et an aes oceans hae Seances 0 0 0 0 
VSIS cacao ecole rae be ee amas See e aac a me eemeas 0 0 0 0 
AS7623 car cnc Sac edodsneess scheme hans Sanoee sees ces eaeawaee eases 0 2 0 1, 724 
10 AE SCE eS OO CU SCO Sn IU C DODO OI Oe ECE 5 OL RDeS Bron ane se neneras 0 2 0 165 
J.—Statement of George Sayward. 
[He fits 5 vessels. } 
S % & E 
& A oes ops 
° 3) So Q2e 
Q.,. aD I 
Years. om | 35 Sg we 
ae) ac g as) 
' ol ol 4 
© : ga 28 
S Ss a a) 
A A ea) aa) 
2 1 981 7t 
2 1 641 171 
3 2 625 293 
3 0 279 0 
1 1 235 127 
2 3 513 572 
1 1 426 83 
2 0 419 0 
2 0 743 0 
1 0 200 0 
0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 
K.—Statement of Daniel Sayward. 
[He fits 4 vessels. ] 
Pay fa zg 
2 2 oe —a 
g Ss # ao 
= nN ne am me eo 
Years. g os o Ad a] 
pe pO 3 g 
= ae 28 
i=) ° 2 2 
A a ia} ioe) 


NOM CNWLAWUwW LW 
SOP NNWWAWRDWW 
wo 
~- 

o 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3369 


L.—Statement of Frederick G. Wonson. 


[He fits 11 vessels. | 


E] S My 2 
2 n = S 
Le — or] 
Be 3 g oe a9 
Years, ry 5 Be oe) 
73 | 3 So 
- we 2 3 
S ° Sa eI 
S ; 3 | 
A 5 =) fa 
OM ore Faas coe ee alse new aus coz Soon cease aete an euee Un aedaees diodes 4 5 700 1, 156 
MND Ge See uats elena eins iciecs ea sc he eo tae oe en dana mands Dean ead aateee ae 4 9 785 1, 391 
MN ence Mane oanoa ais siddelsca ce cnscreearees aicce sone asaaatesne se 6 6 820 1, 202 
Ns oe eases Soe ome sec deal ds tecnse gtd seee tas sas week 5 7 1, 411 1, 746 
Ne ae hs See tepuclneseueee Whe cecea sta toages 5 8 740 3, 883 
1871..... BE ee once wwutd enaeueed saseeade vase esse se cailee 6 8 1, 292 4, 460 
yy BREE RA iano me ccon as eases nes San seereeecancaet te eeEta cree: 2 7 473 3, 168 
MNO sccn bance ocak ene ui cacesorcine dseceta cd cosmo cues eeidwszecncaceses 4 6 980 3, 332 
Mad Cae haicc aise eeuc tes caclaecae cane doeasacesenewssasuseeeecen- 3 12 620 7, 270 
PEA Coene pdeanaic ute ees's scaslcccs cu eccuil a Sanerccuaobaccccaseeenees 2 10 203 3, 129 
EAE RE RA SR HS BORA SAP ak i AR eee a SE a ee aac cacaeee 0 De a a are 6, 213 
TERE SS, LR RE GN EE LE SR EE POE ges 1 1 Paneer Cire EE a 8 
| 
M.—Statement of Samuel Haskell. 
[He fits 5 vessels. } 
s |e |e | ¢ 
4 2 oa, ae 
s o | zo 
“ Sot ROO Sic | ae 
= ra | fe | “2 | 32 
= 2 Se s 
ne ° Ae | S82 
GC) 5 2 
a % 2 =a) 
f 0 0 0 | 0 
0 0 0 0 
4 3 550 339 
1 2 1i5 435 
2 3 335 604 
2 3 540 | 675 
0 3 0: 1, 294 
4 1 672 512 
2 2 720 | 1, 143 
0 1 0 | 710 
0 1 0 | 1, 226 
1 1 0 | 308 
N.—Statement of Smith § Oakes. 
[They fit 7 vessels. ] 
cE b= | My g 
a mi ers ae 
FA oS £ =F 
- 
Years. $3 25 | 32 3 
Ow ey 2 | ,8 4 
© ° 268 i 
° é = 2 
A 7, | =) ==) 
MOMS oes coves ee eT at rena ek a SC sale Depa Sens eT Tee ee eae s 3 2 | 500 520 
Be occ sar eet a, 8 aaa Ae ee ey ee Peano eb alalsicims 5 5 1,010 125 
Rp ete Sar ee arn yn teas ow acca hae ta eer eee. 4 6 1,178 
ee eee ee ee Le oe Sian eran testes ees aeeeas 1 2 150 530 
(TRE a ee alanine Abe nigh a iieta. oe En has a cele 0 0) 0 0 
CESS Sa a a REE EL aD Er Are 2 0) 527 0 
ee ee eee NS a re eee oe nes apenas eee eaves 1 0 372 0 
ESS FEI 0 SSE SAR in Deer err aeEr 0 v | 0 0 
1876..... Psi hat a fe Wie SE Ee ee ere Py ee eee cer Socweweans 0 0) 0 0 
Be on ei ere ee ee re eC camara ceese ceases ceaeweme 0 07 0 0 


3370 . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


O.—Statement of Samuel Lane § Bro. 


[They fit 8 vessels.] 


ss Ss =| b ° 
eS °o if & 
D D2 hone Sue 
oO = = I 
a 2s pe im a= 
B 2 be co) o 
Years. 2 2 ¢ gs S x * 2 ; 
Se wa 8 .8 
= ° 2s 28 
o 5 = 2 
A 5 Fa = 
Sl (eed 659 0 
4 1 946 399 
4 0 471 0 
3 2 369 608 ' 
0 3 0 1,283 | 
1 3 114 1, 368 
2 2 318 547 | 
4 1 1, 302 408 | 
3 2 1, 052 1, 763 9) | 
0 3 1,864 | 
0 3 0 3, 542 
3 3 0 1, 375 
P.—Statement of Shute § Merchant. 
{They fit 11 vessels. ] | 
: 
=| & ad ° 
2 2 a S. 
s 3 3 ck 
n ao - 
Years. Se | 3&5 Sz = 
PS pa 3) ° 3 
S atk ap : 
: = 25 28 
° 5 iS) a 
Z s 4 cs 
11 3 3, 130 293 5 
3 8 1, 690 
6 5 1,115 895 
2 8 584 2, 226 
3 6 1,198 2, 968 
3 5 1,101 2, 964 
4 5 1, 706 1, 758 
2 6 1, 118 3, 550 
1 6 214 2, 451 
i 4 161 2, 612 
1 4 | Not ar- 866 
rived. 
37 60} 10,913 22,263 
| 


Q.—Statement of Walen §- Allen. 


(They fit 13 vessels. ] 


=] & a 2 
2 a = S 
s.(2.| 2 | #3 
Years. ag Ze ee o 
a) Pa e 
“ wa : g n = . 
= ° ie 28 | 
é 5 = 2 
Z % a ma 
1 4 200 2, 240 
3 4 645 1,521 
0 4 0 803 3 
2 Q 602 1, 063 
1 3 333 2, 038 
1 2 108 1, 628 
1 2 70 1, 423 
0 3 0 520 
9 24 1; 958 11, 236 


3371 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


R.—Statement of Dennis § Ayer. 


(They fit 12 vessels. } 


| BSRSSS822958 
‘Tosoxowm Sela ois 


osoys JO "SIqET 


S oo oe bal © o 
SZEESSRSS=8 
Pee REEGHEARS 


vq jo “SIU 


‘TROL 


SRSeSREESES : 


coo aici cicicick a 


“Q10Y8 B]o.LIUg 


DOowrnwrrnooewnow 
YO S[o8svA JOON 


*LUq 
Uf S[@BBOA JO “ON | 


Years. 


*jodoyouut 
feq jo ‘814 


“Durysy 
eros 


8[9880A | 


| BESBSERESSE : 
| ode iofot : 
| 


“SUrysy 


S$.—Joseph O. Procter’s statement. 


Years. 


fa ER ONea RR aNes w e ME E 


vq ul sesso, | 


SM es) 
Each eerie ceteris cele ee de castet sec eses seeceeoes sl 


Dc ccaccscencs- 


BED owevcecict acts sarese snc aue snes se - 


‘joao youu 
O08 JO “BTU 


“Quo youu 
Avq jo "s1qg 


“9.108 


YO S[OB80A JO “ON 


OFTAFrFSCOIOAMIO ST 


*£uq 
UL S[O880A JO "ON 


AWMWOMMMOARNRKONMS 


T.—Statement of James G. Tarr § Bro. 


Years. 


es a em at We ae eg ce 

Wah OR say ae SL QAR 38 
PPG ON JAN en Ses he ORE. oc8: oy 
GT 16,9" LOS 36) lee (6 Ye ts 
CT Oa RU Gael eee uy Sex eee ea) 
CN tas eaten tat ies cle’ Feat Sart ee | 
Sgn, RUS ea et ie) Ley yerue! of 
a ae er he ae (eres Misa ge & & 
a tee Sen Oe Me a teen cee ee or 
ee a ee ee as eK PRD 
i Or Oh Mire) ec Oe ae, oe 8 
Se Dah a Al Oy ae ae OV ey 
(lipe DOC AAT a faa Oey ei Me un Caer 9 
6219) SF OO) SBS OB: LOY Cae ei 
i de We sels) Ve he Ger ae? “be te 
OOO Ee ew) ae ees Lee 
a Nai! Sate lee Kk SO ee Ly pee a | 
een es eee Rok ee at es 
ear COG ES ke ew eases 
eT tan ek ek ee ea cet A 
ee ed ew. eal Je a A ey as 
Re PAS il eg) ee EM ry en Re ya Tan 
©, 8, Gi 8 +e. sit Veg et ie), 1h) J8Y ig 
oe iT ey eae Ae Oe Por eed 
ares ts CTR Ae Pink hat at Deh oat 
Le a ae ae a Way i OM ts 
gre Ree. Sep ee year ere 88 ag 
SMO A CHD. wid a, OL ee Tier eks Wy 
Chena tale staan tow Yimin mite ad eat om oe t 
rT a tas ee NY PM eat ed ey | 
LUE ORs Loe pene: sie 8 oe 
CUEN AG, VOTE Legs SO athe) Coe 
ee Uw week. en eS tye 
CIM Dies Dae teas SOR dae en at cs Oe 
Cis Mares Gey Var oie let ea Cast beat wt 
Co ono ead a Ca eM Sa dA ar 
Pac al an ae Post tah NEN wr tag Peg et 
CAA eae ere OO: Riedie: oe 
Cie eh Cy Sar ce oe eg ge ie 
Ue ep ener eae V6, ero Mite re 
iON Sea a gat Jee ee TL a a ee Lr 
oie ee CMCC Say tan Na Nant eva coer 
Chet peal Cue ga eat cian Jum, Seer Ger 
en Jet Nae, Wit Soa Peet st eT aie Met 
LK Mil CS ad ae es a et i chin) 
CeTONPLE See eat Poe, eel yee eh ee 
Pies wee earl iy GNC Oe peat Pas Tah) 
6. 80H 8e enter es a) ey 6 8 og 
Wal dare AGP ein Men fue eT) 
COO LAG et esate Oe en sew ie 
eo a hy pi Nat a Geer et er Yea 
el LO het ot eT fee: 
eer baer Warrar e are 64 eee 
Cire Wetted led teat, atl mal tal ae Hos | 
PO Re SOON OT NR Ne 
TEI te Ree ear wt} 

Vie ats foenh eee Voom ek aT DRA Jul 
Ce Ce oe er aed een Ben 
aC mes te FoR os pee ee ee fae | 
Cr me ew tet CAD bat Pd. MAY G 
CeCe ee Saree ee 


JAMES G. TARR & BRO. 


GLOUCESTER, Oct. 17, 1877. 


Soke AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


U.— Statement of Clark § Somes. 


z & = 2 
2 a 2. hy 
2 =) i) 2's 
2. @Q = a 
Years é z é E oz Sa 
2 ae ° ° 
ee “DD Ss § 
2 ° a8 aR 
6 6 i) =] 
| BZ A a ee) 
} 
| Conde selwanoerdans Seyere 
6 tno 2| 2004 | 907 
9 2 2,189 75L 
7 2 2, 333 
4 1 1, 407 1, 198 
0 Dilesoeeee ae 51S 
i 4 51 2, 346 
1 2 343 844 
CLARK & SOMES, 
By P. 
Vi 
‘ 
= | 8 2 2 
= 2 4 |. =_: 
2 ae eee ice 
Years. ez | $8 og =e 
2 > g 2 
~ toy D s 
2 wF ZB 
é ) 2 2 
a A faa) fQ 
3 3, 456 sil 
4 3, 070 1, 942 
4 1, 486 1, 000 
8 1,0°8 3, 036 
10 1, 095 4, 476 
12 143 4, 908 
4 163 1, 540 
5 145 1, 466 
8 201 6, 518 
A al a ee 3, 478 
BUN Reena ie 8, 561 
| S| eee neta 1,944 
39 82 | 11,047| 39, 680 


I certify that the above is a true statement from the books of Joseph Friend and testified by bim. 
A. CARTER, Dep. Coll. 


W.—Statement of George Norwood & Son. 


S =| > v 
= ) 2 
2 c ee ad 
ee ae ea ae 
Years. oF 25 C4 | ys 
a Ai oo S 
3 : aR | 98 
° ° 2 } 2 
A A a) mS 
es 2, 548 
756 
138 
2,1 
2, 078 
2, 981 


GEO. NORWOOD & SON 


eu 
=— . AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3373 
j X.—Statement of George Friend §: Co. 
. =a ie cae 
2 é. ‘S24 
z 3 z "t 
Years. 2 i 3 63 Sa 
>S CS) ° 
oe) ee 2 ae 4 
S : ae | ae 
° 
zy 1% = B 
| 
MRO occa oe eee rire ean a cease keel ceeen deric<ceoeadecseen 0 0 0 | 0 
BRT Jote cease os emai ocn ash oisa dea besdshe bones sl eteeen 0 0 0 | 0 
BRG Anos See en foe neath nck eae aga ue ce sana anee eau bes 0 | 0 0 | 0 
EMER Ch dia ote cist sislcsminicie avis atiogt ain’ /sicis einer a'ainicie's © seiiceaa ae abe Rae 0; 0 0 | 0 
Be erates es bo endow ncidoeeaan~) = oasceveasar hcdsesselonestess | ra, Pareree 1, 567 
NN eS EtG Ae oc cciii as Ds doses nckesseyhseiaiasscnumesases 3 5 622. «2173 
BUMS ar nena ecu Ne ogias ance ge cemaasee vest saasee: Q 3 506 971 
BE ac lwiseisa(ac eile miccis'sd mine @lss 6 mic’wis oie sinieo sma ves Sica ese sa oisa:ainaleaie a Z | 
DE ccasignsa'se~ cup evelsisiaidis' se siasssasmes, Soaclasaisaoes sacienesce mee ns & 
MME cope nicceca pace ane tren nice sense seitepis oo Sloss veces ieceecce 2 | 
EE cacsciewacieee clo rieenasa\sceccs = ssiccineccarecccscesseaassses saat PAL 
1877 erro esreeeeeweseeest eee eaee essere eseeeeesesesessseeeseseseeeessees - | 
} Attest: GEORGE FRIEND & CO., 
By Joun J Somes. 
L 
Y.—Statement of Cunningham § Thompson. 
They fit 11 vessels. 
| | ee er - 
| ia eee i 
3 | = ~< ‘lens 
2 Hane 7] 
| hed ge) ct | te 
| Years. | gs | $ S | Om | Sam 
| 3 | ic; en eee 
; ; : a) Set 
° ° | =- 
a i A | a a | 
| 
BN cc oeeinmna cs cen ae vst ana sed ce sioaws be beck ecaneepecee caveseee ons | 0 | 1 Noreturn 1, 100 
SMR ooo sen cee. lc piace wkciiss sacisentes seek cceton ckiseecsis sates ss | 1 | 2 \No return 500 
\* i | | 
CUNNINGHAM & THOMPSON. 
GLOUCESTER, Oct. 16, 1876. 
Z.—Statement of George Dennis § Co. 
= a ee 
2 2 | 4, se 
f. | 82) sf | of 
Years. ee lee | 63 ‘Sau 
oT ee g 
i) So a] E z 
° ° = 
Z Z ca 3 
866...... Men otae astatee Seeceness coaerseeC ene eedecendessalicguneat Tit. 
RE Se cre detente aeea Nac sone eos ce 2s vaso cane seen esenene= cos ege lag 
ER oso eae sec aesacches twos sessesesiees {C28 
~ i : he o 
SO ES IE esto eee a Ra earn Z 


3374 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


AA. 


4 3 33 | 3g 
ae @ ae - 
z . @ ag | 34 
Years. 28 25 ay 28 
s | 3 | 38 | 33 aM 
J Bb 
6 6 6s 5 
Z A a- | oe 
9 1 3, 711 ss 
8 2 2, 842 474 
5 1 914 296 
4 2 805 38k. 
5 1|: 1,153 105 
5 0 15.020) 5-534 + 
4 1 1, 207 208 
3 1 1, 643 720 
4 5 1, 847 3,044 
a 4 153 3, 784 
0 5 0 5, 578 
5 early. : 
4 ; 3 since ; 5 1, 021 
Sept.10th. 2 


The above does not include fresh mackerel sold, which would probably amount to at least 2500 bbls. — 
taken on this shore, but includes salt suld out of pickle, which accounts for the difference between this © 


and our inspection returns. 
ROWE & JORDAN. 


BB.—Statement of Leonard Walen. 


Fits 5 vessels. 
al Ses 
ou; os 
.2 os 
2s a 
Se a3 
Years. aes ca 
Ge 8 oe 
) coo a 
- ~~ i] 
$8 $3 > 
z aa = 
1, 100 
940 
1, 300 
NOW uaceou easy estab ecw adres eet Geese Bees Hee None.... ETS 
: 380 
9, 296 | 


Oct. 17, 1877, . 
LEONARD WALEN. 


we 


CC,—Statement of William S. Wonson. 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


3375 


| 
| 


a = > 2 
| 2 2 | 3 3 
| z z , z ao 
2p, a Ss 5 
Years. | Bae > 8. oa Sx 
— — 2 s s 
4 A 28 28 
Ss S s 2 
a Nea = Ra) 
Bos ocacanss teen sas se == ites ene loses ume ee on eenale ses dase | 0 Oo ee ccpeasael ete eewer 
RSME Re Ae ARAN SRB erro cre Ammo rennin | 0 | 6 |------ =. 767 
Bee teat eae ee ne are anaes sence eee) 2 4 | 972 490 
RSS 2 coe ete sce wae aan ere eee eens sok sane ent aesrece 2 7 | S41 1, 064 
SS aia a cedenac Sane Saco Ene ae ean ase are aamamer sie ee | l 4) 155 1, 132 
EB atm es renee es ee cece bata cee Soe fen eeaeweaw ect acceee 3 3 | 547 363 
ER Sees e seer ee ecto e nc orate canton deceeiaee aero icescees | 0 1 el 261 
1873. Soee 2 7 | 923 927 
RPMs Son epe See tte a. gates on ein ceted pat estes suceesae sitekoeectsa 2 3 | 885 | 266 
NRE Sat oe RARE pee Ape eS eager ste he eer alata ie 2A 1 1 | 156 459 
ne Le Deo et ET eee on ome atone sea eee San awe ae 0 al eee eee 2, 878 
1877... . a See 1 | 6 | 9 1, 200 
| 


WM. S. WONSON. 


Statement of Mackerel inspected at Portsmouth and Newcastle for the 


years 1869 to 1877, inclusive. 
Vv. Lj 


MACKEREL INSPECTED AT PORTSMOUTH AND NEWCASTLE, N. H. 


SCE TSP 5a ko Nn ren re ete Pear a 
at te i Es 1 PRES eR ee esa een nen ee roy era ae 
es es PBT Aote n o he s ient ee'e a SEES 
os ae TOL acc cies bis sk om Dae ate 
ba a WS Tics -eisye Wala Gta oe clee <s,2 sea aes 
“e 7 VTA od ietlewie gue siaStere ssise saa as 
eo HA (Roy fs ae ig ear a ree er SP 
de - Dod Rn ei ee ee ee rears 
ad RGU orton sae eigenen cies oeig iain aia 

URLS OO crea mre art secae 


STATE oF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
Secretary’s Office, Concord, Sept. 4, 1877. 


157 Barrels. 


3,700 
2,071 
1,878 « 
2,398 
5,519 
3,415“ 
5,351 + 

643 


I hereby certify that the above statement is taken from the Reports 


of Inspection made to His Excellency the Governor by 
Spectors for the years therein named. 


the several In- 


In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my oflicial signa- 


A. B. THOMPSON, 
Secretary of State. ° 


ture and affixed the Seal of the State. 


3376 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
VI. 


STATE OF MAINE, 
OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF Sanat 


I hereby certify, that the following is a correct summary of the Annual 
Returns of the Inspector General of Fish for the State of Maine, for the 
several years hereafter written, so far as relates to mackerel inspected 


by him, viz. : 


AS602soa ease eee 45, 407 barrels. LS70 Cs eee 51,611 barrels. ~ 
SG ses ae ea hiosete ses 33,676 = do. icy | Gee a Se 48,603 do. 
TSGS Sea edeee Ser 26,876 do. A key eee eee ero 22,973 do. 
1 RS! A Ae eee 36,031 do. WO das tas cco cee 22,193 do. 


No return was made for the year 1874. 


In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the State to be here- 
unto affixed. Given under my hand at Augusta, this ninth day of Oc- 
tober, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
seven, and in the one hundred and second year of the Independence of 
the United States of America. 

S. J. CHADBOURNE, 


Secretary of State. 


VEE, 


Summary of Returns of Mackerel inspected in the State of Massachu- 
setts for several years past. 


: 


e) 


3377 


BL 'T T8B ‘BE | PaS'> | MEG ‘ET | SLT ‘S [oot tet" *] BGO |---"""""| OTV'S | T86's | Tee ‘s6 | vee ‘oe |o772* easesdneare tape 79 oseea Geae 
816% 90F ‘BT | TOR ‘T | OF ‘OT BOGS | OFO'TS | BIGGS [oocceeee eet eee stee eee cpay 
196 'f £68 ‘be | PRC 'e | G08 ‘OT aco'S | Ele ‘Bll cos ‘ge [TTT per 
; 88s F LL6 ‘6% | OFF ‘GE | LOT ‘ST £28 's | ce es | 11h ‘9B |-oooon eee Soeeceecceseeneees 2a 
& fel € OL ‘eS | ETF 'G | OTS ‘OT 12a 's | 966 ‘49 | ScP'se |"--oeooes ooo Geo At hLe eORBE 
g 16E S 118 ‘BE | 806'9 | 966 ‘IT 9FT ‘9 | 600 ‘LOT 910 ‘EF [ekbiedonepeersyencs dense inn apy 
7) 6Lb'F ece ‘Ib | SbT'8 | Gb9 ‘LT SOR 'L. || SOG, 681) OAL Rb: ]° =< 2% 02" *se=s esse sees sete OLOt 
mM a“ GLB ‘LB &o9'E £68 ‘6 60% ‘9 LOL‘'86 | CET PE Cott seerseseees gogT 
z 198% gce ‘It | 9cb'% | OFT‘ 961 ‘Ss | LI ‘cL | 086 oe | $ esl 
908.1 OFS ‘6B | HIE | OES '9 GOP ‘L | S16 ‘COT! THH BT |""“*7o 777 too 27° mre 
2 ; FER ‘ST | 96'S | BOL'S COWL: | OCB BIT esn op itso e=82eo%s cones s*72* ony = 
= ges ‘LT | TEL’ | ene ‘¢ CFS ‘8 | gue ‘IPI| Gee ‘9g [ort tt ttt teteree teeters coat 
CLL ‘9% | 6FO'L TUL R08 'L | 8&6 ‘FST! 9¢e ‘ez | eueweeecseeagerksucwas sere soBT 
Les 980 'L8 | 9F6 ‘9 | 999 '6 $6°0!) | ROE. CST) OGG Ont? ons terete aee £981 
eI leh ‘93 | cor‘ | Bb ‘IT BLE ‘L | 883 ‘9IT) FS ‘6B |" oo eereren asgiiccleio z98T 
fe SIT ‘FT | Bch ‘e | 216 ‘OT ORT L. 91S 063 | CLESEL: jess sess ees essce aa is T9al 
=| ose ‘28 | 61S ‘6 | 088 ‘6 goes: | sog'ze | est ge eennens- sd sdceahrcset eaee eae bt 
2 zor‘ | aoc | R6r'e $099" )\'900 Oe | eae ee [a ee ere eee 681 
ey see's | 600'T | 6IL's 6806... CSF, OS LPS Ge ilro= 222 eso ccscccss ss cise es pe 
ese ere. Poe's Bee eeceaecarieosc caepe, [se eee eeeelisceeeeeesrisaeeeeeeiseeseaesiseeeseeelisanseeeriseeseeesisenesessisaae ee ee ed L i 
& G6S ‘0G | ETF ‘F | 0% ‘OT TET ‘ST | $60 ‘89 | OFT ‘ES |" 77777 Sao ne Sse sea 9S 
888 ‘0S | OST‘ | 982 ‘IT OFSTED NEGEL-Chy MESO CP inca ae nerar cee aera aee a aan CBI 
a 810 ‘eT | coe ‘3 | 206 ‘8 TOV 8 |RCEE ERA O09 8G i) carte rear saree creas bog 
£BL'B_ | GEOG | BOF iL SheOL EGR ee) Pete tee herr ate rotreries orate tae: ESR] 
a L9G ‘IT | 69L‘S | TL ‘eT 908 ‘IT | €10 ‘8b | E68 ‘GR |" TTT TTT oy vee yen BRT 
° LLP RE | €B'6 | G%B TS £0G:1C.,| 289° 18" | BEL OF |". * Spay hae eee | 0 
SI9‘LL | F9L‘S | 6&8 ‘FT 6%6 ‘BS | E66 ‘GF | 9G8 ‘EB |--7 TT palit ee pee ae se Oc8T 
" E 8 % 8 Q by Y 2 
S E OE - y | 4 E ® = 5 
= £. 8 + 4 = = 4 8 
S 2 | Be | 3 g |B | 2 aR ae oe Ne 
: oo sr : a | ae 
as g 8 
Fe | 8 # 
& “8100.81P POUOyUsULapUU 
oy; fo yone 7» wweh yovo popoodsur sya1uvg fo soqunu oy, Burnoys ‘syasnyovsevyy fo yyvonuowmwmog oy) 4of poseyovu So suopoodsur fo 9.10da4 fo sishjpup—y 
é ; om — “ee 


3378 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


B.—Statement showing the number of barrels of each quality of mackerel, (being the catch of 
United States vessels, ) submitted annually for inspection within the Commonwealth of Massa- - 
chusetts, from 1850 to 1876. 


2 Total 


No.1 | No.2 | No3 No.4 | domestic 


Years. barrels. | barrels. | barrels. | barrels. 


39,595 | 46,242 | 55, 133 ; 135, 
29,202 | 91,122 | 90,199 1,492 | 212, 015 
89,333] 76,819| 47,981 179| 214) 312 
84,519 | 45,218 | 32, 257 712 | 168, 706 
75,347 | 21,930 | 32,333 1,892 | 131, 602 
61,330 | 12,060 | 22.207 99, 716 
: 122,837} 50,579 3,442 | 235, 708 
70,877 | 100,286 | 22, 486 635 | 194, 284 
81,903 | 78,388} 100,011 563 | 260, 865. 
67,985 | 136,075 | 102, 602 281 | 306, 943 
103,383 | 137,747} 32/213 14| 274,357 
153, 923 : 39, 266 245 | 256, 996 
150,329 | 36,319 | 44) 784 264} 231, 696 
123,616 | 46,284] 41,199 421 | 211,510 
93,091 | 42,262 / 44077 626 Y 
72,914 | 92,019] 65,717 3,551 | 234, 201 
66,046 | 189,423 | 63,019 33 | 318,521 | 
105,187 | 85,867 | 68, 323 40| 259, 417 
71,867 | 54,371 | 55, 603 116 | 181,957 
83,687 | 63,889 | 37, 795 377 | 185,748. | 
112,972 | 71,442] 73,966 |.......... 258, 


C.—Statement showing the number of barrels of each quality of mackerel, (being the catch 
of other than United States vessels,) submitted annually for reinspection within the Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts, from 1850 to 1876. 


oney 
Barrels | Barrels | Barrels | Barrels | total, © 
Years. foreign 
od No. 2. No. 3 No. 4. catch red 

inspected 

11, 143 8, 356 2, 069 40 21, 608 

; 6, 192 | Bes BaP 13, 467 

9, 420 7, 048 Do0tNneucecesss 19, 772 

5, 173 3, 562 Pie Re eee 11, 662 

Not | givens | 


tt) given 
6, 062 6, 420 3, 143 206 15, 831 
7,414 5, 959 3, 393 38 16, 
9, 508 7: 5, 580 11 
13, 046 11, 729 7, 537 4 32, 316 
, 19, 304 4, T27 15 51, 318 

14, 654 4, 986 Ac40l | cosee cer 24, 131 

49,007 | 11, 063 6, 712 18 66, 

14, 327 3, 627 2, 122 4 20, 080 
9, 927 9, 052 6, 713 21 25, 784 
9, 206 17, 526 7,149" | cave wocee 33, 881 

11,051} 13,047 61602) Penssea 30, 790 

15, 757 17, 189 Osseo aewa seews 48, 680 

12, 933 14, 813 9) SOS sce. acces 37, 338 

19,887" 158Q010| DOP STAN cease 45, 672 

14, 444 16, 215 13, 112 74 43, 845 

11,257 | 13,934] 11, 835 304 37, 330 


Nots.—The re-inspection of foreign mackerel is confined mainly to Boston. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 3379 


Dp} 
1851. 


The following statistical information is obtained through the returns 
made for that purpose by the deputy inspector of fish to the inspector- 
- general of fish for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the year 1851, 
and therefore may be relied upon as being correct, showing the extent 
and localities of the mackerel fishery ; the number of vessels owned in 
Massachusetts and in other States engaged in that branch of industry, 
which have packed their fish in this State; the amount of tonnage, and 
the number of men and boys employed on board those vessels, viz: 


| 
No.of | Men and 
Where owned. enne lk. | Tonnage. boys. 
| 
7 | 596 85 
12 | 761 97 
23 | 1,918 339 
4 259 47 
2 | 4 14 
19 | 1,346 230 
44| 21885 561 
1 | 117 16 
47 3, 096 585 
3 | 170 23 
1 71 10 
241; 13,639 2, 326 
48 | 3,231 5STT 
37 2. 492 491 
4 167 33 
1 45 8 
1 30 5 
6 421 65 
3 168 30 
67 4, 343 707 
5 336 54 
6 561 65 
61 4, 322 688 
42 1, 537 283 
1 80 9 
13 715 119 
4 305 48 
52 3 581 
79 5, 41 852 
14 169 
853 | 53, 712 9,117 
47| 3,019 446 
8 515 84 
7 79 wel 
23 1, 551 255 
2 | 141 25 
940 | 59,417 9, 998 
| 
1851. 
Whole amount of mackerel inspected in Massachusetts in 1851 in barrels ..-.----------------- 329, 242 
Of which were caught at Bay Chaleurs or in British waters. ....--.-------------+---- 140, 906 
Canght on shores of the United States or in American waters. -......-.--++++-+-+++- 188, 336 can 
i CHAS. MAYO, 
@igned) Inspector-General of Fish. 
1852. 
Whole amount of mackerel inspected in Massachusetts in 1852. ....-..--.+--+++eeeee- 198 197 barrels, 
eiich amount were caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence in American ves- ‘eas 
oe EES AS AAS See ee a eee er ey eee occ oy re nr 38, 
i Gail WAteral) cack sone coos cocsates coca ueees tle case wwencen== 160, 127 
Caught in American waters.......--------++- iar 
(Signed) CHARLES MAYO, 


Inspector-General oy Fish. 


3380 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


he 


E. 


Statement of the vessels owned in ses aie employed in the mackerel fishery in the year 


No. of No. men 
Where owned. vessels, | Lonnage. and boys, 

Roetons.c05ss0s000es6 hesetastdccwesacaeuicces oo eae mann ore Berea nes oc 8 675 25 ] 
BOVOrlly.. cece cece ccsce cece aiemarcdulacecsaneucccetonave an eme pugceassans 12 761 97 
Barnstaple. .d.coscss csccesucccncccensonatacess sees aelaaisnavanee see anne 30 2,119 355 
(BLO WSUCl: =. 262 rece sicecweses oon eice winia a(uint ole lateryi semis adiuvwWenes~e wade wewenaee 4 47 
Charlestown .....- wocevess BORE CC COUPE Poe eraeerrerecte eee nie a 2 74 16 
COlaanet cdc gcascndanJenciaseancasacudecasenetdnes oie inal gudvga tne ass 37 2, 062 451 
Whathamiscorecsoccensases Sesebe Spsocsoeern Sees a sacaee Ae Soe Be cee 18 1, 264 221 
WareMONulix-ecsecccoceeececsscscce ceria che nesedesas|(aesicaide ces ecsccccee ii 117 16 
Wennis: oc ssccseseoen'e ecacensesse= Sewsaseccccceccans @ cwereccccnccce enone 48 3, 060 595 
Eastham..... Goro. Gcecoea ae ose ante peered olelemieis POCO SUED DOCee ERE ECe weceses 3 170 23 
IMSSOX.. 2-2 SotHecensdcesea Ccaneas ccnitnda weed Seaceeteavcccnn oweevaweum sees 1 71 10 
GIOUCESIEr coc oceceecc access aesa eccccecenccccces ecccceccccce ececccscce- 259 15, 139 2, 526 
Harwich. -c.<asec5 Wesaee canada cscse saae ne Ruane neces cee neovesmiaas a 60 4, 331 680 
iin ghiamyes so.cadsecsns aenes= aeeeednence AOCDG ancceccecs eeceaes See 30 1, 991 415 
LYNN) cadccss sacs scactanscencasaccuceacncsecsecacs Secenaeanaieaeetaees 6 3 5i 
BNONEStER ecccea sas Weaceee cscs es omee aes aeadewannceescuae ace dacceas 1 45 3 
Marblehead ...... .... Susneas SEER OAC COOOL SBecac een Pear ere 1 30 5 
Martha’s Vineyard ............ sesepunaecese sae esas eeneceeaececeecass mo 6 420 65 
Nantucket..... SECECOe eae econ cee ceaeence ae REECE EE: sonaente ace aes 3 168 30 
INGWDUTYPOlS-co ne sacs sas senstce rece ece awecocat Dansseeeaonecaeee She 57 3, 641 628 
OTIGANS 2b cd esccus coussccustotsesca et asvecacwceees aecdee SEC OC CO CO SDOCEE 5 336 54 
Plymouth? << .iecsecesaa Goseesbeceoses seeetenes Seosaesseue sauseesencass es 6 561 65 
Provincetown ssee.c2-5<csecesccees usec eusoeusccusederececsscecsces tens 65 4, 815 750 
54 Seer weanecasmeaeasse panecenceas Siwuscmeucosetoueseseanmescols 50 2, 160 353 
DRlOM ee cucccasenscae soeeee Bi scecoessicccteeeseeseee Wowccrwceadaseweene i 80 9 
Scituate ss. .sseccecascseses. Sawnae cesses rere torr corre eae 7 430 75 
Salisbury ...... Estevecnetsscows 4 305 48 

FOs-cscesceses 49 3, 326 
Wellficet ........ 86 5,911 852 
Yarmouth ....... 15 , 106 186 
(Signed) PAYNE G. ATWOOD, 


Inspector General. 9 


eee EN Dt x oe, 
No, 1: 


In the Court of Vice Admiralty. 


Judgment of His Honor Judge Hazen in the case of the “ White Fawn.” 


The following is a copy of the decision recently pronounced by His Honor 
Judge Hazen in this case. 


At the last sitting of this Court, Mr. Tuck, B. C., Proctor for the 
Crown, applied, on behalf of Sir John A. McDonald, the Attorney-Gen- 
eral of the Dominion, for a monition, calling upon the owners of the 
schooner and her cargo, to show cause why the White Fawn and the 
articles above enumerated with her tackle, etc., should not be consid- 
ered as forfeited to the Crown for a violation of the Imperial Statute 59, 
George III., Cap. 38, and the Dominion Statutes 31 Vic., Cap. 61, and 
33 Vic., Cap. 15. 

The White Fawn, as it appears from her papers, was a new vessel of 
64 tons, and registered at Gloucester, Massachusetts, in 1870, and owned 
in equal shares by Messrs. Somes, Friend, and Smith, of that place ; 

That she was duly licensed for one year, to be employed in the Coast- 
ing Trade and Fisheries, under the laws of the United States ; 

That by her “‘ Fishery Shipping Paper,” signed by the master and ten 
men, the usual agreement was entered into for pursuing the Cod and 
other Fisheries, with minute provisions for the division of the profits 
among the owners, skipper, and crew. These papers and other docu- 
ments found on board, are all in perfect order, and not the slightest sus- 
picion can be thrown upon tbem. The Seamen’s Articles are dated 19th 
November, 1870 :—On the 24th Nov., 1870, she arrived at Head Harbor, 
a small Bay in the eastern end of Campobello, in the county of Char- 
lotte, in this Province. 

Captain Betts, a Fishery Officer, in command of the Water Lily, a ves- 

_ Sel in the service of the Dominion, states that on the 25th November he 
was lying with his vessel at Head Harbor. Several other vessels, and 
among them the White Fawn, were lying in the harbor; that he went 
on board the White Fawn: He states a number of particulars respect- 
ing the vessel from her papers, and adds that the said vessel, White 
Fawn, had arrived at Head Harbor on the 24th Nov., and had been 
engaged purchasing fresh herrings, to be used as bait in trawl fish- 
ing; that there were on board about 5,000 herrings, which had been 
obtained and taken on board at Head Harbor; also 15 tons of ice, and 
all the materials and appliances for trawl fishing, and that the master 
admitted to him that the herring had been obtained at Head Harbor by 
him for the purpose of being used as bait for fishing. There are then 
some remarks as to the master being deceived as to the fact of the cut- 
ter being in the neighborhood, which are not material; and, that de- 
ponent further understood that persons had been employed at Head 
Harbour to catch the herring for him; that he seized the schooner on the 
2 th, [sic], and arrived with her the same evening at St. John, and de- 
livered her on the next day to the Collector of the Customs. 

No reason is given for the delay which has taken place of more than 


a 
: | 
| 


3382 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


two months in proceeding against the vessel, which was seized, as 
alleged by Captain Betts, for a violation of the terms of the Convention 
and the Laws of Canada; her voyage was broken up, and her crew 
dispersed at the time of the seizure. 

By the Imperial Statute, 59 George III., cap. 38, it is declared that if 
any foreign vessel, or person on board thereof, “ shall be found to be 
fishing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within such dis- 
tance (three marine miles) of the coast, such vessel and cargo shall be 
forfeited.” 


The Dominion Statute, 31 Vic., Cap. 61, as amended by 33 Vie., Cap. | 


15, enacts: “If such foreign vessel is found fishing, or preparing to fish, 
or to have been fishing in British waters, within three marine miles of 
the coast, such vessel, her tackle, etc., and cargo, shall be forfeited.” 

The White Fawn was a foreign vessel in British waters; in fact, 
within one of the Counties of this Province when she was seized. It is 
not alleged that she is subject to forfeiture for having entered Head 
Harbour for other purposes than shelter or obtaining wood and water. 
Under Section III, of the Imperial Act, no forfeiture but a penalty can 
be inflicted for such entry. Nor is it alleged that she committed any 
infraction of the Customs or Revenue Laws. It is not stated that she 
had fished within the prescribed limits, or had been found fishing, bat 
that she was “preparing to fish,” having bought bait (an article no 
doubt very material if not necessary for successful fishing) from the 
inhabitants of Campobello. Assuming that the fact of such purchase 
establishes a “preparing to fish” under the Statutes (which I do not 
admit), i think, before a forfeiture could be incurred, it must be shown 
that the preparations were for an illegal fishing in British waters: 
hence, for aught which appears, the intention of the Master may have 
been to prosecuting his fishing outside of the three-mile limit, in con- 
formity with the Statutes; and it is not for the court to impute fraud 
or an intention to infringe the provisions of our statutes to any person, 
British or foreign, in the absence of evidence of such fraud. He hada 
right, in common with all other persons, to pass with his vessel through 
the three miles, from our coast to the fishing grounds outside, which he 
might lawfully use, and, as I have already stated, there is no evidence 
of any intention to fish before he reached such grounds. 

The construction sought to be put upon the statutes by the Crown 


officers would appear to be thus :—‘‘A foreign vessel, being in British | 


waters and purchasing from a British subject any article which may 
be used in prosecuting the fisheries, without its being shown that such 
article is to be used in illegal fishing in British waters, is liable to for- 
feiture as preparing to fish in British waters.” 

I cannot adopt such a construction. I think it harsh and unreasona- 
ble, and not warranted by the words of the statutes. It would subject 
a foreign vessel, which might be of great value, as in the present case, 
to forfeiture, with her cargo and outfits, for purchasing (while she was 
pursuing her voyage in British waters, as she lawfully might do, within 
three miles of our coast) of a British subject any article, however small 
in value (a cod-line or net for instance) without its being shown that 
there was any intention of using such articles in illegal fishing in British 
waters before she reached the fishing ground to which she might legally 
resort for fishing under the terms of the Statutes. 

I construe the Statutes simply thus :—If a foreign vessel is found—Iist, 
having taken fish ; 2nd, fishing, although no fish have been taken; 3rd 
“preparing to fish,” (i. e.), with her crew arranging her nets, lines, an 
fishing tackle for fishing, though not actually applied to fishing, in 


‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3383 


British waters, in either of those cases specified in the statutes the for- 
feiture attaches. 

I think the words “ preparing to fish” were introduced for the pur- 
pose of preventing the escape of a foreign vessel’ which, though with 
intent of illegal fishing in British waters, had not taken fish or engaged 
in fishing by setting nets and lines, but was seized in the very act of 
putting out her lines, nets, ete., into the water, and so preparing to 
fish. Without these a vessel so situated would escape seizure, inasmuch 
as the crew had neither caught fish nor been found fishing. 

Taking this view of the Statutes, I am of the opinion that the facts 
disclosed by the affidavits do not furnish legal grounds for the seizure 
of the American schooner White Fawn, by Captain Betts, the com- 
mander of the Dominion vessel Water Lily, and do not make out a prima 
facie case for condemnation in this Court, of the schooner, her tackle, 
&c., and cargo. , 

I may add that as the construction I have put upon the Statute differs 
from that adopted by the Crown Officers of the Dominion, it is satis- 
factory to know that the judgment of the Supreme Court may be 
obtained by information, filed there, as the Imperial Act 59, George IIL., 
Cap. 38, gave concurrent jurisdiction to that Court in cases of this 
nature. 


No. 2. 
[Extract from the Halifax Daily Reporter and Times, Dec. 7, 1870.] 
In the Vice Admiralty Court at Halifax. 


The “ Wampatuck.”—Case No. 254.—Sir William Young, Judge.—6th Dec., 
1870. 


This is an American fishing vessel of 46 tons burthen, owned at Ply- 
mouth, in the State of Massachusetts, and sailing under a fishing license, 
issued by the Collector there on the 25th of April last. On the 27th of 
June she was seized by Capt. Tory, of the Dominion cutter Ida £., 
for a violation of the Dominion Fishery Acts of 1868 and 1870, and her 
nationality and character appear from her enrolment and other papers 
delivered up by her master, and on file in this Court. A monition hav- 
ing issued in the usual form on the 27th of July, a libel was filed on the 
10th of August, and a*claim having been put in by the owners with a 
bond for costs, as required by the Act, they filed their responsive alle- 
gation on the 18th of August. The fish and salt on board at the time 
of seizure being perishable, were sold under an order of the Court, and 
the proceeds, with the vessel herself, remain subject to jts decree. The 
evidence was completed early in September, but the case, being the first 
of the several fishing cases, that has been tried, was not brought before 
the Court for a hearing till the 26th ult., when it was fully argued, and 
stands now for judgment. Although it presents few or none of the nicer 
and more perplexing questions that will arise in the other cases, now also 
ripe for a hearing, it will be regarded with the deepest interest by the 
community and the profession, and on that account demands a more 
cautious and thorough examination than it might require simply on its 
own merits. : 

“An attempt was made at the argument to import into it wider and 
more comprehensive inquiries than properly belong to it. I am here to 


orn, 


=~ ; 


3384 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


administer the law as I find it, not to determine its expediency or its 
justice, still less to inquire into the wisdom of a Treaty deliberately ~ 
made by the two Governments of Great Britain and the United States, 
and acknowledged by both. If the people of the United States, inad- 
vertently, as it is alleged, or unwisely (which I by no means admit) 
renounced their inherent rights, and ought to fall back on the Treaty of 
1783, rather than abide by the existing Treaty of 1818, that is a matter 
for negotiation between the two contracting powers—it belongs to the 
higher region of international and political action, and not to the hum- 
bler, but still the highly responsible and honorable duty now imposed 
on me, of interpreting and enforcing the law as it is. 

‘‘ By the first Article of the Treaty of 1818, after certain privileges 
or rights within certain limits conceded to American fishermen, it is 
declared, that ‘‘the United States hereby renounce forever any liberty _ 
heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, 
or cure fish, on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, 
creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions in America, not 
- included within the above mentioned limits. Provided, however, that — 

the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such baysorharbors 
for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damage therein, of purchas-  __ 
ing 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 what- 
ever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them. 

‘‘ Every word of this Article should be studied and understood by 
the people of these Provinces. They perfectly appreciate the value of | 
their exclusive right to the inshore fishery, thus formally and clearly _ 
recognized, and they must take care temperately but firmly to preserve _ 
and guard it. It was argued in this case, that the restriction applied 
only to fishing vessels; that is, vessels fitted out for the purposes of 
fishing—that it did not extend to other vessels which might find it con- 
venient or profitable to fish within the limits. But that is not the lan- 
guage of the Treaty nor of the Acts founded on it. The United States 
renounce the liberty enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants, not merely 
by the fishermen thereof, and any vessel, fishing or otherwise, within _ 
the limits prescribed by the Treaty, is liable to forfeiture. 

‘Extreme cases were put to me at the hearing, and I have seen them 
frequently stated elsewhere, of a trading vessel or gn American citizen 
catching a few fish for food or for pleasure, and the Court was asked 
whether in such and the like cases it would impose forfeituras or pen- 
alties. When such eases arise there will be no difficulty, I think, in 
dealing with them. Neither the Government hor the Courts of the 
Dominion would favor a narrow and illiberal construction, or sanction a 
forfeiture or penalty inconsistent with national comity and usage, and 
with the plain object and intent of the Treaty. The rights of a people, 
as of an individual, are never so much respected as when they are exer- 
cised in a spirit of fairness and moderation. Besides, by a clause of the 
Dominion Act of 1868, which is not to be found in the Imperial Act of 
1819, nor in our Nova Scotia Act of 1836, which formed the code of 
rules and regulations under the Treaty of 1818, with the sanction of 
His Majesty, the Governor-General in Council, in cases of seizure under 
the Act, may, by order, direct a stay of proceedings ; and, in cases of 
condemnation, may relieve from the penalty, in whole or in part, and 
on such terms as may be deemed right. Any undue straining of the 
law, or harshness in its application may thus be softened or redressed, 
and although I was told that little confidence was to be placed in the 


ar 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3385 


moderation of Governments; it is obvious that confidence is placed in 
it by the authorities and by the people of the United States; and it is 
a fact honorable to both parties, that the naval forces employed on the 
fishing grounds in the past seasons, have acted in perfect harmony, and 
carried out the provisions of the Treaty in good faith. The organs of 
public opinion, indeed, in the United States, of the highest stamp, have 
denounced open and deliberate violation of the Treaty in terms as de- 
cided as we ourselves could use. 

“ These considerations have prepared us for a review of the pleadings 
and of the evidence taken in this case. The libel contains six articles. 
The first sets out in the briefest possible terms, the first article already 
cited of the Treaty of 20th Oct., 1818. The second gives the title of the 
Imperial Act 59 Geo. 3, chap. 38. The third that of the British North 
American Act 1867, the 30th and 31st Vic. chap. The fourth, those of 
the Dominion Acts of 1868 and 1870, the 31st Vic., chap. 61 and the 33 
Vic. chap. 15. The fifth alleges that on the 27th of June last, the 
Wampatuck, her master and crew, within the limits reserved in the 
Treaty, were discovered fishing at Aspy Bay in British waters, within 
three marine miles of the coast, without license for that purpose, and 
that the vessel and cargo were thereupon seized by Capt. Tory, being a 
fishery officer in command of the Ida H., a vessel in the service of the 
Government of Canada, for a breach of the provisions of the Conven- 
tion, or of the Statutes in that behalf, and delivered into the custody of 
the principal officer of Customs at Sydney, Cape Breton. The conclud- 
ing article prays for a condemnation of the vessel and cargo, as forfeited 
to the Crown. 

‘The responsive allegation admits the Convention, and the several 
Statutes as pleaded, raising no question thereon. It admits that the 
Wampatuck, being an American vessel, left the port of Plymouth on a 
fishing voyage to the Grand Bank, beyond the limits of any rights re- 
served by the Convention of 1818, and alleges that she was not intended 
to fish on the coasts or in the bays of British North America; that on 
the 27th day of June, while pursuing her said voyage, becoming short 
of water, she ran into Aspy Bay for the purpose of procuring a supply 
thereof, and for no other purpose whatsoever; that the master, with 
two of the crew, rowed ashore to get a supply of water as aforesaid, 
and directed the crew on board to work the vessel inshore to a con- 
venient distance for watering, and that the master and crew were not 
discovered fishing within three marine miles of the coast as alleged. 
The sixth article, repeating the same allegations, proceeds to state fur- 
ther—that ‘as the owners are informed, while the said master was on 
shore as aforesaid, the steward of the said vessel, and being one of the 

- erew of the same, while the said vessel was lying becalmed in the said 
bay, did with a fishing-line, being part of the tackle of the said vessel, 
catch seven codfish for the purpose of cooking them, then and there, for 
the food of the crew of the said vessel, and not for the purpose of 
curing or preserving them, as part of the cargo of the said vessel ; 
that the said fish were so caught without the knowledge, against the 
will, and in the absence of the master of the said vessel and part of 
her crew, and for this offense only the vessel and cargo had been seized. 

“T observe that this last allegation was repeated in an affidavit of 
one of the owners on file, and, as we must infer, was consistent with his 
belief at the time, and probably led to the claim being put in under the 
1ith and 12th sections of the Act of 1868, Had the evidence sustained 
it, the case would have assumed a very different complexion ; but, as 


. 


3386 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


we shall presently see, it is utterly at variance with the acts and the - 


admissions of the parties on board. 

“Tt is a remarkable circumstance that neither the master nor crew of 
the vessel have been examined, nor any evidence adduced on the de- 
fense, although a Commission was granted on the 7th September for 
that purpose. At the hearing, indeed, two papers were tendered by 


the Defendant’s counsel—one an ex parte examination of Forrest E. | 


Rollin, one of the crew, taken on the 27th September, in the State of 


Maine; the other, a deposition of Daniel Goodwin, the master, made — 


on the 2nd of July—neither of which I could receive’ by the rules that 
govern this Court, and neither of which I have read. The latter, in- 
deed, had never been filed, nor had the deponent been subjected to 
cross-examination. 

‘“‘ The case, therefore, was heard solely upon the evidence for the pros- 


ecntion, consisting of the depositions of Captain Tory, Martin Sullivan, | 


his second mate, and five others of the crew of the Jda E. From these 
it appears that the latter entered Aspy Bay about 10 o’clock on the 
morning of June 27th, and was engaged all day in boarding the vessels 
lying there; and what seems very strange, but is plainly shown, that 
her presence and character were known to the master and erew of the 
Wampatuck, and as one would have thought, would have made, them 
cautious in their proceedings. She had entered the Bay on the same 
morning, and remained hovering about the shore all that day, about 4 
or 5 miles from the Jda E. Gibson, one of the crew, states that Captain 
Tory and four of his crew, including the witness, left the Ida E., be- 
tween 6 and 7 o’clock in. the evening to go to the Wampatuck, which 
latter vessel was then about 14 miles or a little more from the shore. 


When they reached her they saw several cod-fish about 15 or 20, on 


deck, very lately caught—some of which were alive, jumping on the 
deck. They also saw some codfish lines on deck, not wound up, appar- 
ently just taken out of the water. Captain Tory states that several of 
the crew were engaged in fishing codfish—that they saw several codfish 
unsplit, very recently caught, on her deck, some of which were alive, 
In his cross-examination he says that he saw three or four men with 
lines overboard, apparently in the act of fishing, and that there were 
more than 8 or 10 newly caught fish on the deck,—he judged from 15 to 
20. Graham states that they saw several codfish very recently caught, 
on the deck, some of which were alive,—saw also several codfish lines on 
deck, and one of the crew of the Wampatuck haul a line in—there were 
5 or 6 men on board of her at the time. These statements are generally 
confirmed by the other four witnesses, and being uncontradicted, leave 
no doubt of the fact of a fishing within the reserved limits, for the pur- 
pose of curing and not of procuring food only, as was averred. 

“The admissions of Captain Goodwin are equally emphatic. He came 
on board immediately after the seizure, and Sullivan heard him say that 
he could not blame Captain Tory,—his crew was so crazy to catch fish 
that they would not stop. Graham heard Captain Goodwin say that he 
knew he had broken the rules and was inside of the limits, and that the 
vessel was a lawful prize, that Captain Tory had done no more than his 
duty, that he could not blame him. This witness, in his eross-examina- 
tion, says that about an hour after Captain Goodwin came on board he 
heard him say that he told the crew not to catch fish inside while he was 
away, but it was no use to talk, that fishermen would catch fish wher- 
ever they would get them to bite. The same witness says that he asked 
the crew, as they knew it was the cutter’s boat coming, why they did 
not throw the fish overboard, and one of them said they might have 


a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 338T 


done so, but it did not come in their minds. Captain Tory testifies that 
Captain Goodwin repeatedly admitted to him that he was aware that 
their fishing in shore was a violation of the law, and pleaded that he 
would not be severe on him. In his cross-examination, Captain Tory 
says that at the time of such admissions he does not recollect Captain 
Goodwin saying that the fishing was done without his knowledge or 
against his orders. Captain Tory does not think that he said so, as wit- 
ness believes the Captain was aware the Wampatuck went out from the 
harbor to fish, and that he saw her within the limits. Gibson also tes- 
tifies that on their way across the Bay he heard Captain Goodwin tell 
Captain Tory that he could not blame him—it was not his fault—that 
he blamed himself, and that he knew he had violated the law. 

‘‘This mass of testimony having been open to the inspection of the 
defendants and their counsel since the beginning of September, it is very 
significant that they produced no witness in reply, and that it stood at 
the hearing, wholly uncontradicted. As neither want of ability, nor of 
zeal, can be imputed to the counsel, the necessary inference is, that the 
facts testified to are substantially true. 

“Two or three arguments were urged at the hearing, which it is in- 
cumbent on me to notice. 

‘It was said that there could be no forfeiture, unless an intent to vio- 
late the law were clearly shown on the part of the prosecution. The 
answer is, that the intent was shown by the admissions in proof, and 
that, independently of the admissions, where acts are illegal, the intent 
is to be gathered from the acts themselves. 

“Tt was next said that the captain of the Zda HP. ought to have noti- 
fied the master of the Wampatuck, but it was admitted in the same 
breath that notice was not required in the Statute, the Act of 1870 being 
somewhat more stringent in that respect than the Act of 1868, while the 
private instructions to the captain of the cutter were not in proof. 

“The main objection, however, was, that the fishing having been done in 
theabsence and without the authority of Capt. Goodwin, the vessel was 
not liable to forfeiture. Now, it is to be noted that there is no evidence, 
nothing under oath, of the master having prohibited, or been ignorant of, 
the fishing. Ihave stated his disclaimer as accompanying, or qualifying, 
lis admissions; but if the prohibition or want of authority would consti- 
tute a defence, it should have been proved. It is to beobserved, too, that 
under the shipping paper, showing a crew of nine persons in all, seven be- 
sidesthe skipper and salter, the men were not shipped by wages, nor by 
the thousand of fish caught, but were sharesmen having an interest in the 
voyage, and whose acts as fishermen, necessarily compromised the ves- 
sel. They were inhabitants of the United States, fishing in violation of 
the Treaty, and the Act of 1870 declares that if any foreign ship or ves- 
sel have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing 
(in British waters) within the prescribed limits, such ship, vessel or 
ey on the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores and cargo there- 
of, shall be forfeited. But supposing the doctrine as between master 
‘and servant, or as between principal and agent, to apply, for which ne 
authority was cited, it would not avail the defendants. The last point, 
as to agency, was examined thoroughly in the Supreme Court of this 
Province, in the case of Pope vs. the Pictou Steamboat Company, in 
1865, and was decided against the principal. And as to the analogy of 
‘master and servant—the responsibility of the master for the act of the 
servant, where, as in this case, the servant was acting within the scope 
of his employment, I would content myself with citing the decision of 
‘the Exchequer Chamber in the case of Limpus vs. the General Omnibus 


3388 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Company, 7 Law Term, Reports, N. S., 641, where the rule is laid down - 


by Blackburn, J., in these words :—‘It is agreed by all that a master is 
responsible for the improper act of his servant, even if it be wilful, reck- 
less or improper, provided the act is the act of the servant in the scope 
of his employment, and in executing the matter for which he was 
engaged at the time.’ 


‘These objections, therefore, having failed, and the fishing by the crew © 


within the reserved limits having been abundantly proved, this Court 


condemns the Wampatuck, her tackle, apparel, furniture, stores and — 
eargo as forfeited under the Dominion Acts, the vessel to be sold at | 
public auction, and the proceeds to be distributed, along with the pro- — 


ceeds of the cargo, as directed by the Act of 1868.” 


No. 3. 
[Extract from the Halifax Daily Reporter and Times, Feb. 11, 1871.] 
In the Vice Admiralty Court, 10th Feb’y, 1871. 


The ‘A. H. Wanson,” Fishing Vessel.—Sir William Young, Judge Vice 
Admiralty. 


“This is a schooner of 63 tons burthen, belonging to Gloucester, in 
the State of Massachusetts, sailing under an enrolment of 4th June, 
1868, and a fishing license of 27th June last. On the 3rd Sept., she was 
seized by Capt. Carmichael, of the Sweepstakes, one of the Dominion 
cutters, for fishing within three marine miles of the coast of Cape Breton, 
at Broad Cove, and was libelled therefor in the usual form on the 17th. 
On the 19th her owners put in their responsive allegation, and at the 
same time her master and four of her crew were examined thereon. 
For the prosecution there were examined by the 30th Sept., the Captain, 
the first officer, three of the other officers, and ten of the crew of the 
Sweepstakes ; and on the 21st and 22nd Cctober there were examined 
under commission at Canso, the master and two of the seamen of. the 
Dusky Lake, a fishing schooner belonging to Margaree. All the wit- 
nesses on both sides in these 23 depositions were subjected to cross- 
examination, and the evidence, as was perhaps to be expected, is con- 
flicting. The case, as it will be perceived, was ready for trial by the 
end of October ; but the intervening terms of the Supreme Court, and 
the incessant engagements both of Judge and Counsel rendered it im- 
possible to bring it on for a hearing until the 4thinst. The legal princi- 
ples applicable to the case having been fully discussed in that of the 
Wampatuck, the argument was confined to the effect of the evidence; 
and the decision will turn solely on questions of fact. 

‘On the 2d of September, the cutter, a sailing vessel, and scarcely 


distinguishable from the usual class of fishing craft, arrived at Broad. 


Cove about ten o’clock at night, and next morning a little before 5 
o'clock, according to Captain Carmichael, who is confirmed in all essen- 
tial particulars by his officers and crew, he discovered a number of 
vessels, some say aS many as 70, fishing close to them, and hove to 
under their mainsails. Some of these were American, and Evans, the 
boatswain, says he saw the captain of the American vessel nearest to 
them stand on the house and wave his hat to the other vessels near at 
hand, and they immediately hoisted their jibs and made off from shore. 


~ al 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3389 


None of these were caught; but Captain Carmichael discovered the 
A. H. Wanson about a third of a mile distant. She was hove to under 
her mainsail, with her rail manned, and fishing on the starboard side, 


-according to the established usage. The morning was clear, and he 


could see the men on her deck distinctly, casting their lines and throw- 
ing bait; he also looked at her through his spyglass, and described 


_ certain marks on her to his men, that they might easily distinguish and 


board her. He then steered in the direction of the A. H. Wanson, and 
when about fifty yards of her, hoisted his colors, and fired a blank car- 
tridge. The vessel then showed American colors, and Nickerson, the 
first officer, and boat’s crew, went on board. 

‘‘ Nickerson testifies that he also distinctly saw the men casting and 


_ hauling in their lines, and throwing bait, until the cutter was within 


three hundred yards of them. He observed them at this work for about 
fifteen minutes. After going on deck, he observed four lines over the 
rail in the water, on the starboard side; he saw several of the hooks 
baited with fresh bait; he saw the bait on the lines in the water after 
being hauled in; he also saw scales of fresh mackerel on the deck, and 
over the inside of the strike barrels then on the deck; also two bait- 


- boxes, with fresh bait in them—pogies and clams. He then signalled 


for the captain of the Cutter, who came on board, and asked some of 
the crew why they did not get under weigh when they saw his vessel, 
having had plenty of time to get off. Some of them replied that they 
did not see him; they were not thinking of Cutters, only of Steamers, 
having arrived only the evening before. The vessel wds*then in 17 
fathoms of water, by the lead, less than two miles from Cape Breton 
shore, and Sea Wolf Island bearing about North by the compass. 
When seized she was drifting, with mainsail guyed off, in the direction 
of Sea Wolf Island, forging a trifle ahead. 

“Tt would be a waste of time to go through the depositions of the 


_ other officers and crew of the Cutter, which are more or less affirmative 
_ of, and none of them contradict the above. Jones says he saw one man 
_ forward of the main rigging throw a scoop of bait into the water. This 


is confirmed by five others—Grant, Langley, Cleas, Evans, and Hen- 
nesy. 
“ Rose says that the crew ceased casting their lines about a minute 


before the Sweepstakes rounded to. The A. H. Wanson was then inside 
| of two miles from Cape Breton shore, and drifting in, in a Northwest- 
erly course. 


“From the direction in which the Cutter came, veiling her approach, 
and with the Nova Scotia vessels intervening, none of the persons on 
board saw the fish actually taken and hauled up, and the further evi- 
dence of the three men on board the Dusky Lake becomes very material. 
Thos. E Nickerson says there were about 100 yards from the A. H. 
Wanson, lying between her and the shore. He did not see any fish 
taken or caught by her, he could not see the men hauling any lines or 
throwing bait from the way the sails hid them, but in answer to the 11th 
question, he says that he saw the Cutter approaching—she approached 
the A. H. Wanson from the south-west, and the witness observed her 
men standing at the rail, and saw them take their strike-barrels to 
leeward, and throw round mackerel overboard, and when the Sweep- 
stakes was rounding to, they hauled in their main sheet, and after the 
Sweepstakes fired a gun, they hoisted their colors to the main peak. 
The next witness, Joseph H. Grant, says the A. H. Wanson was lying 
to under mainsail and foresail ; they appeared to be fishing ; he did not 
see them catch any; as the Sweepstakes approached, he observed them 


3390 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


take their strike barrels to leeward, and throw the mackerel overboard, 
he could not see any one throwing bait; but saw the tole of bait in the~ 
water, as is usual when bait is throwing, in order to raise mackerel. 

“ By the ninth cross interrogatory he was asked ‘ would not any ves- 
sel drifting along use the same sails and appear in the same position as 
the A. H. Wanson? Is there anything particular in the use of their 
sails by vessels employed in mackerel fishing more than in any other , 
vessels?’ To which his answer is: ‘1 cannot say—never saw any ves- 
sel in that position unless she was fishing. There is quite a difference? 
He had previously said that he had been two years engaged in the hook 
and line mackerel fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and was quite — 
familiar with the way in which the fish are caught. 

“ The remaining witness, Thomas Roberts, who was described at the | 
hearing as the master, says the A. H. Wanson was lying north-west, | 
and about 200 yards from the Dusky Lake, they (that is the men of the. 
A. H. Wanson) catching mackerel, lying head to the southward, under — 
her mainsail. They were fishing, and the witness saw them catch fish— 
mackerel. She was inside of three miles. He further says:—‘I ob- 
served lines on the starboard side. I saw the men handling the lines— 
sixteen or seventeen men. They hauled them in with fish on them, and 
slatted them off, and threw them out again. . . . Isaw them throw- 
ing bait in the manner usual for attracting mackerel.” In his thirteenth 
answer, he says: ‘I can positively swear they were catching mackerel, 
and were within three marine miles of the shores of Cape Breton’ 
When the Sweepstakes ran down upon them from the south-west they 
gave up fishing, and carried their strike-barrels to leeward, and threw 
the fish overboard.” In answer to the eleventh and thirteenth cross- 
interrogatories, he says: ‘1 saw them heaving bait, casting lines, catch- 
ing mackerel, and dumping them overboard, and coiling up their lines. 
They were slatting fish off of their lines after hauling them in!’ 

“ Let us consider the effect of this mass of evidence, which I have 
gone into with a particularity very unusual with me, and only to be justi- 
fied by the nature of the charge, and the necessity of vindicating every 
judgment that is pronounced. Here is a fleet of vessels, Nova Scotian 
and American, on a fine clear morning, busily engaged in fishing, the 
mackerel rising all around, and no hostile cutter supposed to be near. - 
The Americans think little of the prohibition which the new and more 
vigorous policy of the Dominion has imposed. They are impatient of 
the exclusive right claimed by the Canadian people on the principles — 
of international law, and the faith of treaties; and violate it without 
scruples whenever the opportunity occurs. Hence the eagerness, and 
the openness too, with which these American fishermen are plying their 
task on this particular morning. What should we say, if we were told 
that one vessel only was virtuous or strong enough to resist the tempta- 
tions, and to hold their hands from touching their neighbour’s goods ? 
The captain of the Wampatuck, when caught in the act, excused him- 
self, on the ground, that his crew were so crazy to catch fish, that they 
would not stop. But, here on the decks of the A. H. Wanson was @ 
model crew, who would not catch mackerel within the three miles, 
though swarming around them. That is the sole defence in this case. 
They admit that they were within three miles of the shore—that they 
were lying guyed off under mainsail, and with their anchor up, heading 
south-south east towards the shore in the very position for fishing— 
they were not aware’of the arrival of the cutter—and yet they would 
have this Court believe that they were not fishing. It would bea great 
stretch of credulity to believe this in the absence of evidence to the con- 


li 


ee 


al it i it - 


v 
s 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3391 


trary. But with the mass of testimony just recited—the 8 or 10 men 
upon the rail—the casting and hauling in of the mackerel lines—the 
throwing of bait—the emptying of the strike barrels on the approach 
of the cutter, and the clear and positive evidence of three disinterested 
witnesses from the Dusky Lake—what is to said of such a defence? In 
the face of it all, the master and four of the crew of the A. H. Wanson— 
_ five out of the 16 or 17 men, said to be on board, bave sworn that said 
schooner, or the captain or crew thereof, did not fish, or prepare to fish, 
within three marine miles of the coasts, bays, harbors, or creeks of Canada, 
or of that part of the coasts and bays thereof known as Broadcove and as 
Seawolf Island on the north-west coast of Cape Breton, on the 3rd day 
of September last, or at any other time during said season. This might 
_ besupposed to be a mere formal denial, repeated, however wrongfully 
and incautiously, by all five, in the very words of the responsive al- 
legation, but in the body of their evidence they assert that none of the 
men were fishing, or had been fishing that morning, or at any time after 
going into Broadcove, or were preparing to fish. By what strange cas- 
uistry these men reconcile such an assertion to their consciences, and 
sense of right, it is difficult to tell. The human mind practices singular 
_ delusions upon itself, and the spectacle of conflicting evidence is only 
_ too common in courts of justice. It is enough, in the present case, 
to say that the evidence for the prosecution is overwhelming and irre- 
- gistible. The allegation that the men were only clearing out their tan- 
_ gled lines, besides being inconsistent with the usage and habits of ex- 
pert fishermen, is wholly insufficient to account for the actions of these 
men while on the rail, as seen and testified to by so many of the wit- 
nesses. 

“T pronounce therefore, for the condemnation of the A. H. Wanson, 
her tackle, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo, as forfeited under the 
Dominion Acts, and the same having been bailed at the appraised value 
of $3,500, I direct that the amount shall be paid into court, to be dis- 
tributed as directed by the Act of 1868. I pronounce also for the costs 
secured by the first bond, on the defence being put in.” 


No. 4. 
[Extract from the Halifax Daily Reporter and Times, February 13th, 1871.] 
’ IN THE VICE ADMIRALTY COURT, 10TH FEP’Y, 1871. 
The “ A. J. Franklin."—Sir William Young, Judge Vice Admiralty. 


“This is a schooner of 53 tons burthen, owned at Gloucester, in the 
State of Massachusetts, under an enrolment of 4th February, 1868, and 
Sailing under a fishing license of 28th January, 1870. Attached to her 

pers are also printed copies of the Treasury Circulars issued at Wash- 
ington on 16th May and 9th June last, apprising the owners and mas- 
ters of fishing vessels of the first article of the Treaty of 1818, of the 
Dominion acts of 1868 and 1870, and of the equipment of Canadian sail- 
ing vessels for the enforcement thereof. This vessel—the A. J. Frank- 
lin—having been warned by Captain Tory, of the cutter da E., against 
fishing within the prescribed limits, and having been found on the 11th 
October in the midst of a mackerel fleet at Broad Cove, was overhauled 
and visited by the cutter, and was then let go; but, on further informa- 


= 


=f 


3392 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


. tion that she had been fishing on that day, she was seized on the 15th 
October, in the Strait of Canso, and libelled in the usual form on the 2nd 
November, and a responsive allegation put in. The vessel and cargo 
were afterward liberated on bail at the appraised value of $2,500, and 
depositions were taken both sides, and cross-interrogatories filed. Some 
irregularities appear on the face of them, which were waived by consent 
as endorsed, and the case came before me on the 6th instant, on the 
pleadings, and eighteen depositions, those of the master, second mate, 
and six of the crew of the Jda E., and of six of the crew of two Lunen- — 
burg vessels, produced on the part of the prosecution, and those of the 
first mate of the Jda E., and of the master and two of the crew of the 
A. J. Franklin, produced on the defence. 

‘‘Captain Tory states that on the morning of the 11th October, he saw 
the mackerel fleet close to the shore in Broad Cove, engaged in fishing, 
and having run outside until he got about midway, he fired a blank 
shot, for the purpose of ascertaining, by their returning the signal, what 
vessels were British and what not. The A. J. Franklin then came out 
from the centre of the fleet, and immediately set all sail and ran direct 
from the land, as if trying to avoid detection. To prevent her escape 
the captain ordered a shot to be fired across her bow, when she hauled 
down her jib, and hove to. The two vessels were then about 24 miles 
from Marsh Point in Broad Cove, and less than 2 miles from Sea Wolf 
Island. The captain at once boarded the A. J. Franklin, and found 
some mackerel lines coiled up on the rail that were wet, the hooks at- 
tached thereto being newly or fresh baited, and fresh fish-blood and 
mackerel gills on deck ; he saw also other lines coiled up under the rail, 
which were dry. Captain Tory charged Captain Nass with fishing that — 
morning inside the limits, and he admitted that he was lying to with 
his jib down and sheets off when the first gun was fired, but denied that 
he had caught any mackerel. He said, however, that he had caught 
two or three codfish. He accounted for his lines being so recently wet 
by the washing of the deck. His attention was then called to the gills, 
blood, and bait on deck, but no fresh mackerel being found, and Nass 
solemnly denying having caught any, and appealing to two vessels, 
which he named, for confirmation of his statement, Capt. Tory released 
him, warning him, however, that if he ascertained that he had been 
fishing, or trying to fish, within the limits that morning, that he would 
seize him wherever he caught him, within three miles of the coast. 

‘This statement is confirmed by the other men who boarded the ves- 
sel with Capt. Tory. Matson thinks the A. J. Franklin was not more 
than one and a-half miles from the shore when they first saw her. Nass 
at first denied that he had his jib down, but afterwards admitted it, and 
said he was waiting to see if the other vessels caught any mackerel. 
Although this circumstance, and his being so near the shore were sus- 
picious, it is obvious that on the facts as they then appeared, the seizure 
of the vessel could not have been justified, especially if it be true, as 
ae in the defendants’ evidence, that she was then outside of the three 
miles. 

‘““The evidence of the Lunenburg men is, therefore, very material, and 
we must see what it amounts to. There were two vessels, the Cherub 
and the Nimble, and the A. J. Franklin lay within 60 to 100 yards of 
them. The crews spoke together while trying to fish. Arnburg saw 
three of the crew of the A. J. Franklin fishing,—saw them catch cod- 
fish—three he is sure of ; she was in the position to catch mackerel, and 
was then about a mile from the shore. The witness saw no mackerel 
caught, and no fish thrown overboard. Rodenizer states that-the A. J. 


i. a 
AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3393 


Franklin and his vessel lay 100 yards apart. The skipper of the A. J. 
Franklin said “mackerel were scarce; he did not do much yet.” He 
was at the bait box. The crew were preparing for fishing on the star- 
board side, which is the invariable usage. David Heckman says “ we 
were on the starboard bow of the A. J. Franklin She had her mack- 
erel lines out, and they were heaving bait. She continued trying for 

’ mackerel till after the Ida HP. fired the second time, when the crew hauled 
in their mackerel lines, hoisted jib, trimmed their sails, and stood off 
out from the fleet, and set staysail. Thomas Herman says, four of the 
crew of the A. J. Franklin were fishing for cod-fish—the skipper was 
throwing bait for mackerel, and threw his mackerel lines—others were 
on the rail on the starboard side, looking over. She was hove to, jib 

~ down, foresail and mainsail up, and sheets off on port side. Peter 
Heckman states that he saw some of the crew of the A. J. Franklin 
trying to catch mackerel—they threw their lines over the starboard side 
—they threw bait over to raise mackerel—they were throwing bait with . 
lines over, trying for mackerel, as the Jda H. approached—the crew after 
she fired, hauled in the lines, hoisted jib, and stood off the shore. The 
crew cheered and shouted as they got out of the fleet, and set their 
staysail. George W. Nass says that he saw some of the crew of the A, 
J. Franklin heaving bait, and they had mackerel lines out on the star- 
board side. She was hove to, jib down, mainsail and foresail to port, 
as is usual in fishing for mackerel—she was then within two miles of 
Broad Cove shore, and about three miles to the westward of Seawolf 
Island. When the Jda HE. came from the westward, the witness heard 
skipper Nass call out something to one of the other vessels—the reply 
to him was that it was one of the cutters. The A.J. Franklin then 
hauled in her mackerel lines, and hoisted her jib, and stood to the north- 
ward, and then set her staysail. 

* Neither this witness nor any of the others ever saw any mackerel 
caught, nor any fish thrown over from the A. J. Franklin. 

“The case for the prosecution is strengthened by certain declarations 
of the crew, which were not objected to at the hearing, and being against 
their interest as sharesmen, are receivable, I think, in evidence. 

“Captain Tory testifies that he heard several of the crew of the A. J. 
Franklin say on the day of the seizure at the Strait of Canso, that after 
he left their vessel at Broad Cove, they advised Captain Nass to clear 
out of the Bay, and go immediately home—that Capt. Tory would find 
out they had been fishing, and seize them, and that they would lose their 
fish, to which Capt. Nass replied, that he would like to try a few days 
longer—that Capt. Tory had been aboard, and was not likely to trouble 
them again, or such like words. 

“ Sullivan heard one of the crew make a like declaration ; and McMas- 
ter heard one of the crew say, that after the A. J. Franklin was seized, 
that they had caught mackerel the morning Capt. Tory boarded them 
off Broad Cove. ; : 

“Of the depositions for the defence, that of Regis Raimond, who was 
first mate of the Ida E., merely repeats what has been already stated— 
that Capt. Tory, after he boarded the A. J. Franklin, assigned as bis 
reason tor not seizing her, that he had found no fish taken that morning, 
and did not think they had been fishing. The seizure, obviously, re- 
sulted from information subsequently received. 

“The depositions of Capt. Nass and two of his crew, go much farther, 
and deny a fishing or preparing to fish altogether. They allege that the 
jib was let down to prevent their running into another vessel that was 
ahead. On no day, say they, between the Ist and 15th October, had 


213 F 


“~ 


3394 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. * 


the A. J. Franklin, or any of her crew been fishing or preparing to fish, 
or had fished, within three marine miles of the North West coast of Cape 
Breton. On the morning of the 11th they sailed from Port Hood 
towards Broadcove. After hoisting their jib to go to East Point, and 
having got outside of the fleet, a gun was fired from the Ida E. They 
continued on their course, and after running about half-a-mile, a second 
gun was fired, when the A. J. Franklin hove to, and was boarded, and, 
after enquiry, was let go. This is the substance of Captain Nass’s affi- 


davit, who states also that Captain Tory was doubtful or reluctant to © 


serve him, aud in his statement of what occurred on the 11th he is con- 
firmed by Morash and Mitchell. 

“These three deponents, in fact, are in direct conflict with the six men 
who have given evidence from Lunenburg. All the minute circumstan- 
ces they have detailed—the first, that the A. J. Franklin was in the 
centre of the fleet,—that, within 100 yards of the Nova Scotia vessels 
she was in the position for fishing, throwing bait to attract the mack- 
erel, aud with her lines down,—ber hasty retreat on the approach of 
the cutter—all are to be rejected as fabrications, and the six witnesses 
from Lunenburg, who have no interest in the matter, to be disbelieved. 
I need not say that no Court could come to such a conclusion, and for 
all the purposes of this suit, the evidence of these Lunenburg men must 
be taken as substantially true. 

“To what result, then, does it tend. On the charge of preparing to 
fish—a phrase to be found in all the British and Colonial Acts, but not in 
the treaty—I shall say little in this judgment, because it will be the 
main enquiry in the judgment I am to pronounce in a few days in the 
far more important case of the J. H. Nickerson. Had 1 considered the 


facts in this case to amount to nothing more than a preparing to fish, I 


would have postponed my decision until the other was prepared and 
delivered. But I look upon the throwing of bait—the heaving to with 
sheets off, and the jib down, and the vessel thus lying in the position to 
catch mackerel, with the mackerel lines out, and hauled in on the ap- 
proach of the cutter—these circumstances, coupled with the declaration 
and actions of Captain Nass, bring the case clearly, as I think, within 
the meaning of the Dominion Acts of 1868 and 1870, as a fishing, and 
subject the vessel and her cargo to forfeiture, although no mackerel are 
proved, except by the declarations of the crew, to have been taken. If 
I am wrong in this conclusion, an appeal to the High Court of Admi- 
ralty, under the Imperial Act of 1863, will afford the Defendants redress, 
and I shall not be sorry to see such appeal prosecuted. Or the Domin- 
ion Government may see fit to relieve from the penalty in whole or in 
part, as they have a right to do, under the Act of 1868, Sec. 19. Per- 
sonally, I may say—if a Judge has a right to express any personal feel- 
ing—as the vessel was appraised at $800, and the cargo, in which the 
crew were largely interested, at a much larger sum, I would be well 
pleased to see the penalty in this case largely mitigated. 

“It is not the policy, as I take it, of the Dominion Government, nor 
is it the disposition of this Court, to press with undue severity upon the 
American fishermen, even when they trench upon our undoubted rights. 
The Court has been accused, I am told, of condemning the Wampatuck, 
because the steward, in the absence of the master, had caught seven 
codfish within the limits, for the purposes of cooking. Such, it is true, 
was the defence that was set up, and, had it been established, there 
would certainly have been no condemnation. Bat the evidence showed 
that there was a fishing by three or four men, having lines overboard, 
as was admitted by the master, and several codfish caught for the pur- 


— - 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3395 


pose of curing, and not of procuring food only, as was averred. So, in 
' this case, three or four codfish are admitted to have been taken within 
the limits; but I have not taken that circumstance at all into account, 
_ eonsidering it too trifling to be a ground of condemnation. 

‘In the case of the Reward,—2 Dodson Adm. Repts., 269, 270—Sir 
William Scott, observed: 

“The Court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in 
the application‘of Statutes. The Court permits the qualification implied 
in the ancient maxim, ‘ De minimus non curat lex. When there are 
irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the 
infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were 
a mere trifle, (and the catching of a few codfish for a meal is such), 
weighing little or nothing in the public interest, it might properly be 
overlooked.” : : 

** Upon the other grounds, however, on which I have enlarged, I con- 
ceive it my duty to declare the A. J. Franklin, her apparel and cargo, for- 
feited, with costs, and her value, when collected from the Bail, distrib- 
uted under the Act of 1868.” 


No. 5. 
[Extract from the Halifax Daily Reporter and Times, Novr. 15, 1871.] 
In the Vice Admiralty Court, 1871. 


The “J. H. Nickerson.” 


“Sir William Young, Judge Vice Admiralty, pronounced the follow- 
ing judgment in the above cause :— 

* This is an American Fishing vessel of seventy tons burthen, owned 
at Salem, Massachusetts, and sailing under a Fishing License issued by 
the Collector of that Port, and dated March 25th, A. D., 1869. In the 
month of June 1870, she was seized by Captain Tory of the Dominion 
Schooner Ida E., while in the North Bay of Ingonish, Cape Breton, 
about three or four cable lengths from the shore; and it appeared the 
offense charged against her was that she had run into that Bay for the 
purpose of procuring bait, had persisted in remaining there for that 
purpose after warning to depart therefrom, and not to return, and had 
procured or purchased bait while there. This case, therefore, differs 
essentially from the cases [ have already decided. It comes within the 
charge of preparing to fish—a phrase to be found in all the British and 
Colonial Acts, but not in the Treaty of 1818. In giving judgment 10th 
February last, in the case of the A. J. Franklin, I referred to the case 
in hand, and stated that I would pronounce judgment in this also in a 
few days, which I was prepared to do. But it was intimated to the 
Court that some compromise or settlement might possibly take place in 
reference to the instructions that had been issued from time to time to 
the cruisers, and to the negociations pending between the two Govern- 
ments, and I have accordingly suspended judgment until now, when it 
has been formally moved for. | 

“The same asguments were urged at the hearing of this cause as in 
the case of the Wampatuck on the wisdom of the Treaty of 1818, and 
some severe strictures were passed on the spirit and tendency of the 
Two Dominion Acts of 1868 and 1870. To all such arguments and strie- 

_ tures the same answer must be given in thisas in my former judgments. 


3396 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


The libel sets out in separate articles these two acts with the treaty, and 
the Imperial Acts of 1819 and 1867, all of which areadmitted without any 
questions raised thereon in the responsive allegation. I must take them, 
therefore. both on general principles and on the pleading, as binding on 
this court; and it is of no consequence whether the judge approves or 
disapproves ofthem. A judge may sometimes intimate a desire that the 
enactments he is called upon to enforce should be modified or changed ; 
but until they are repealed in whole or in part, they constitute the law, 
which it is his business and his duty to administer. 


“Our present enquiry is, what was the law as it stood on the Statute . 


Book on the 30th of June, 1870, when the seizure was made? The | 


court, as [ take it, kas nothing to do with the instructions of the gov- 
ernment to its officers, and which, if in their possession on that day, 
might have induced them to abstain from the seizure of this vessel, or 
may induce the government now to exercise the power conferred on 
them by the 19th section of the Acts of 1868. 

* But before pursuing this inquiry, let us first of all ascertain the facts 
as they appear in evidence. For the prosecution, there were exhibited 
the examinations duly taken under the rules of 1859, of Capt. Tory 
and thirteen of his crew, all of whom were examined on cross-interrog- 
atories. 

“Capt. Tory testifies that he boarded the vessel at Ingonish, on the 
25th ot June, and the master being on shore, that he asked the crew 
then on board, what they were doing there, and they said they were 
after bait, and had procured some while they were there after coming 
in, and wanted more. About an hour after he saw the master, and told 
him he had violated the law, that he had no power to allow the vessel 
to remain, and that he had better leave. On the 26th the vessel was 


still there in the harbor, and Capt. Tory boarded her and saw fresh her- © 


ring bait in the ice house; and Capt. McDonald, the master, admitted that 
he had procured said bait since his arrival; and he afterwards admitted 
that he had violated the law, and hoped that Captain Tory would not 
be too severe with him; and as he promised to leave with his vessel, 
Capt. Tory did not then seize her. She went to sea the same night, but on 
the 30th was found again at anchor in the same place where Capt. Tory 
boarded her; and judging from the appearance of her deck, that she 
had very recently procured more bait, which he saw the next morning, he 
seized ber. In his cross-examination, he says that the herrings he saw 
on the first occasion in the ice-house on board were fresh, but had been 
a night or two in the nets, which caused them to be a little damaged; 
and were large, fat herring, and similar to those caught in the vicinity 
of Ingonish at that season of the year. The herrings be saw on the sec- 
ond occasion were also fresh, newly caught, with blood on them, of the 
same description, except that they were sound. 

“This evidence, in its main features, is confirmed by several of the 
crew. Grant went into the ice-house by order of his captain, and there 
saw about five or six barrels of fresh herring bait and a few fresh mack- 
erel. There were scales of fresh fish on the rails, from which witness 
judged that they bad taken fish that norning. Capt. Tory then seized 
the ‘* Nickerson” and placed witness on board as one of the crew, to 
take her to North Sydney, the captain of the “ Nickerson” remaining on 
board. Witness, on the passage, heard said captain say (and this sev- 
eral of the other men confirm in words to the like effect) that he had 
purchased 700 or 800 herrings that morning. He also said that he 
wanted more bait,—that it was of no use going out with that much. 
McMaster says that on the passage to Sydney, he heard some of the 


_ > 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 339T 


crew of the “ Nickerson” say that they had bought seven barrels of 
fresh herring bait that morning and that they wanted more. Four of 
the seamen testify to another conversation with Captain McDonald, in 
which he said he would not have come in a second time had he known 
the cutter was at hand, that all the bait he had would not bait his 
trawls once, and that it was not worth while for him to go off to the 
Banks with that much. These depositions were taken on the 1st of 
September, 1870), and the only reply is the examination of John Wills, 
the steward of the “ Nickerson,” taken in October under a commission 
at Boston, which undertakes to deny altogether the purchasing or pro- 
euring bait,—nullifying the numerous adwissions in proof and support- 
_ing the responsive allegation as a whole. Neither the master nor any 
of the crew of the “J. H. Nickerson” were examined, and I need 
searcely say that the evidence of the steward alone, as opposed to the 
_mass of testimony I have cited, is unworthy of credjt. 

‘Tt being, then, clearly established that the “J. H. Nickerson” entered 
a British port and was anchored within three marine miles of the coast 
off Cape Breton, for the purpose of purchasing or procuring bait, and 
did there purchase or procure it in June, 1870, the single question arises 
on the Treaty of 1818 and the Acts of the Imperial and Dominion Par- 

liaments. -Is this a sufficient ground for seizure and condemnation ? 
This was said at the hearing to be a test case,—the most important that 
had come before the Court since the termination of the Reciprocity 
Treaty of 1854. But it has lost much of its importance since the hear- 
ing in February, and the present aspect of the question would scarcely 
justify the elaborate review which might otherwise have been reasonably 
expected. If the law should remain as it is, and the instructions issued 
from Downing stréet on the 30th of April and by the Dominion Govern- 
ment on the 27th Jane, 1870, as communicated to Parliament, were 
to continue, no future seizure like the present could occur; and if the 
Treaty of 1818 and the ‘Acts consequent thereon are superseded, this 
peement ceases to have any value beyond its operation on the case in 
and. 

“The first Article of the Convention of 1818 must be construed, as all 
other instruments are, with a view to the surrounding circumstances 
and according to the plain meaning of the words employed. The sub- 
tleties and refinements that have been applied to it will find little favor 
with ,a Court governed by the rules of sound reason, nor will it attach 
too much value to the protocols and drafts or the history of the negocia- 
tions that preceded it. We must assume that it was drawn by able men 
and ratified by the governments of two great powers, who knew per- 
fectly well what they were respectively gaining or conceding, and took 
care to express what they meant. After a formal renunciation by the 
United States of the liberty of fishing, theretofore enjoyed or claimed, 
Wi hin the prescribed limits of three marine miles of any of our bays or 
harbors, they guard themselves by this proviso: ‘ Provided, however, 
that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or 

harbors for the purpose of shelter and repairing damage therein, of pur- 

chasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. 
But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to pre- 
vent them taking, drying or curing fish therein, or in any ol her manner 
whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them.” 

“These privileges are explicitly and clearly defined, and to make as- 
surance doubly sure, they are accompanied by a negative declaration 
excluding any other purpose beyond the purpose expressed. I confine 
myself to the single point that is before me. There is no charge here 


+ ee 


3398 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


of taking fish for bait or otherwise, nor of drying or curing fish, nor of 


obtaining supplies or trading. The defendants allege that the “ Nicker- — 


son” entered the Bay of Ingonish and anchored within three marine 
miles of the shore for the purpose of obtaining water and taking off 
two of her men who had friends on shore. Neither the master nor the 
crew on board thereof, in the words of the responsive allegation, ‘ fish- 
ing, preparing to fish, nor procuring bait wherewith to fish, nor having 
been fishing in British waters, within three marine miles of the coast.” 


Had this been proved, it would have been a complete defense, nor would ~ 


the Court have been disposed to narrow it as respects either water, pro- 
visions or wood. But the evidence conclusively shows that the allega- 
tion put in is untrue. The defendants bave not claimed in their plea 
what their counsel claimed at the hearing, and their evidence has ut- 
terly failed them. Thevessel went in, not to obtain water or men, as 
the allegation says, nor to obtain water and provisions, as their witness 
says ; but to purchase or procure bait (which, asI take it, is a prepar- 
ing to fish), and it was contended that they had a right to do so, and 
that no forfeiture accrued on such entering. The answer is, that if a 
privilege to enter our harbors for bait was to be conceded to American 
fishermen, it ought to have been in the Treaty, and it is too important 
a matter to have been accidentally overlooked. We know, indeed, 
from the State Papers that it was not overlooked,—that it was suggested 
and declined. But the court, as I have already intimated, does not in- 
sist upon that as a reason for its jadgment. What may be justly and 
fairly insisted on is that beyond the four purposes specified in the 
Treaty—shelter, repairs, water and wood,—here is another purpose or 
claim not specified; while the treaty itself declares that no such other 
purpose or claim shall be received to justify an entry. It appears to me 
an inevitable conclusion that the “J. H. Nickerson,” in entering the 
Bay of Ingonish for the purpose of procuring bait, and evincing that 
purpose by purchasing or procuring bait while there, became liable to 
forfeiture, and upon the true construction of the Treaty and Acts of 
Parliament, was legally seized. 

‘*T direct, therefore, the usual decree to be filed for condemnation of 
vessel and cargo, and for distribution of the proceeds according to the 
Dominion Act of 1871.” 


APPEN DIX Q. 


: TESTIMONY IN REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF HER BRITAN- 
| NIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT. 


No.1; 


THUR: DAY, October 25. 
The Conference met. 


Prof. HENRY YOULE HIND was called on behalf of the Government 
of Her Britannic Majesty, sworn and examined. 


By Mr. Thomson : 


Question. Have you made a specialty of examining into marine mat- 
ters, the effect of tides and winds, the habits of fish, and such things ?— 
Answer. Yes. 

Q. For a number of years back?—A. Yes; for a number of years, 
more particularly from the year 1861. 

_ Q. You devoted your attention specially to that subject 7—A. Yes; 
especially to the subject of marine physics or ocean physics. 

Q. Do you belong to any learned society 7—A. No; not any specially 

_ learned society. 

Q. Now, Mr. Hind, you have made a special study of the action of 
the Arctic current on the American coast and in the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Also the effect of the Gulf Stream ?—A. Yes; I have. 

Q. Well, now, you have also, I believe, paid attention to the habits of 
the mackerel and cod ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, take the mackerel. Will you state, if you please, in your 
judgment, what is the habit of the fish in reference to hibernating ?— 
A. I think there can be little, if any doubt, that the mackerel, in all our 
seas, and in some European seas, hibernates, or passes a certain period 
of the winter in a condition of torpidity in sand banks or mud holes, 
either close inshore, or far off the coast. For instance, on various parts 
of the Nova Scotia coast, they have been taken from the mud through 
the ice, in the act of spearing for eels, as, for instance, on our immediate 

shore at St. Margaret’s Bay, and the Bay of Inhabitants in Cape Breton. 
They have also been found on the coast of Newfoundland at Christmas, 
driven ashore there by the ice, or the wind, with what the fishermen 
call a scale over the eyes. I need scarcely say there is no such thing as 
a seale, in the ordinary sense of the term, but this is a film that forms 
over the eyes, and can always be seen in the spring of the year. The 
object of this film is evidently to protect the eye of the animal during 
their winter torpidity from parasitic crastaceans. There is an order of 
parasitic animals in the Northeru Seas, specially belonging to the class 
of Lernzida, which attack the eyes of fishes, particularly the eyes of the . 
shark. You very rarely, for instance, get a shark, without finding one 
of these parasitical creatures attached tothe eye. They feed on the eye 
as others do upon the gills, and it appears to me that the object of this 
film is specially to protect the eye. when the head is partially immersed 

- in the mud or sand. guste 
Q. From that you infer that the mackerel is not what is ordinarily 
_ termed a migratory fish ?—A. No; it is a local fish, frequenting the 


4 


3400 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


waters in which it is brought forth. They may have a local run of 40 _— 
or 50 miles. their general run being in the form of a circle or eclipse, 
like most other fish. 

Q. Then take the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; all the mackerel born there 
remain ?—A. I believe all the mackerel which are found in the gulf are 
exclusively a bome fish. ; 

Q. And the same is true on the American coast ?—A. Yes; and all 
other coasts, France, Labrador, Newfoundland, and wherever they are 
found hibernating. I may mention that on the coast of France they — 
are not unfrequently taken from the sand by means of a trawl-net during 
the winter. Blanchiere describes them being taken out of the mud or 
sand by means of ordinary trawls. I speak now of the beam-trawl, 
which drags over the surface of the sand, very similar to the one on the 
Speedwell, but not suspended on the two iron heads which you observe 
in the Speedwell’s trawl. By means of this trawl dragging over the 
surface, shell-fish and others, mackerel for instance, are taken up. 

Q. Does the mackerel require a particular temperature of water to 
live? From what points of temperature does it range ?—A. From ob- 
servations made in regard to its spawning you will find that it always 
spawns, as far as can be known, in waters of nearly the same tempera- 
ture, a temperature characterized by its lowness. Whenever it spawns, — 
there is either an Arctic current, or some current which gives a tempera- 
ture between 37° and 43°. 

Q. Then it is only between 5° and 11° above the freezing point ?—A. 
Yes; about that temperature. 

Q. What about the cod; is it a fish that requires a low temperature ?— 
A. With regard to the spawning of cod, it always seeks the coldest 
water wherever ice is not present. In all the spawning-grounds from 
the Strait of Belle Isle down to Massachusetts Bay, and they are very 
numerous indeed, they spawn during almost all seasons of the year, 
and always in those localities where the water is coldest, verging on the 
freezing point. That is, the freezing point of fresh water, not of salt, 
because there is a vast difference between the two. 

Q. Now state, if you please, how the tides run in the Bay of St. Law- 
rence, and the effect which they have upon the fish that require cold 
water ?—A. In order to describe the effect of the tides upon the cold 
water I must first describe the remarkable condition which exists in all 
seas, and particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, namely, the temper- 
ature zones in the ocean. Very frequently you will find a warm stratum 
underlying the cold. This has been known for a period of about 30 
years in the gulf. It was discovered first by Admiral Bayfield, and the 
discovery carried to a further degree by Dr. Kelly. Their reports were 
published, but unfortunately did not attract the attention they merited. 
But recently, since the Challenger expedition and the investigations of 
Dr. Carpenter and Sir Wyville Thomson, and more particularly since 
the Norwegian discoveries and the Swedish discoveries in the Baltic 
Sea, extraordinary attention has been devoted to the subject of zones 
of temperature in the sea. They are considered to afford a key to the 
movements of fishes. Very recently it has been announced with tri- | 
umph that zones of temperature had been discovered in the Baltic Sea. | - 
This fact was discovered 30 years ago, and was then known to exist in 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

Q. Now explain if you please the effect of the Arctic current.—A. 
The effect of every current in the ocean is to bring the cold stratum of 
water, which lies at a depth of ten or fifteen or twenty fathoms, near to 
the surface ; and one reason why on Orphan and Bradley Banks the 


ae 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3401 


water is invariably cold is, that the temperature is thus affected by the 
currents which bring the cold water to the surface. That is the reason 
why the water is always 14° or 16° colder on the Grand Banks than in 
the surronnding deep sea, simply because the cold Arctic current is 
forced up and is brought to the surface... On the Georges shoals the 
marine life is that of 40°. So also in the spawning grounds of the mack- 
erel in Massachusetts Bay, a tongue of the Arctic current produces a 
cold temperature there of about 40°. ; 

With reference to the tidal wave I will refer toadiagram. The great 
tidal wave at the full and change of the moon strikes the eutrance of 
the gulf about half past eight in the morning. As this tidal wave en- 
ters the gulf it is split into two parts by the Magdalen Islands. One | 
part pursues its course between Cape Breton and the Magdalen group, 
and reaches the southern part of Prince Edward Island at ten o’clock. 
The other portion passes around to the north of the Magdalen Islands, 
and over the 60-fathom line of soundings, becoming slower and slower 
in motion until it reaches this point (referring to Escumenac on map), 
at four o’clock, and the next point (Richibucto), at six o’clock, and the 
next point at eight, and finally it meets the wave which came in be- 
tween the Magdalen Islands and Cape Breton twelve hours before. It 
meets it at a point in the Straits of Northumberland. In precisely the 
same way the two tidal waves, one twelve hours later than the other, 
meet at a point marked on this chart on the north side of Prince Ed- 
ward Island. You will find the words “ tides meet.” That is to say, the 
tidal wave twelve hours old meets the incoming tidal wave at this point 
and produces constant high water. There is only one other place where 
the phenomenon is well known to any great extent, that is, in the Ger- 
man Ocean, where the tidal wave rushing up the English Channel meets 
the wave twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four hours old in the German 
Ocean and produces a permanent high tide. According to Admiral 
Bayfield, the tides here (pointing to Northumberland on map) are two 
or three times higher than they would be if there was not this meeting 
of the tidal wave. Bayfield says it is twice the normal height and in 
some instances three times. The effect of it is that any vessel entering 
the Strait of Northumberland with the flood tide goes with the tide to 
the point where the tides meet, and goes on in the same course on the 
ebb tide all the way through. It comes in with the flood and goes on 
with the ebb. The numbers on the map indicate the time at which the 
tide passes, and refer only to the full and change of the moon. The 
hours would differ between those periods, but at the full and change of 
the moon it is high water as indicated by these figures. 

Now with regard to the tidal wave that runs up the gulf and produces 
very remarkable phenomena, I must here draw attention to the fact 
that the channel of the gulf has an average depth of 300 to 250 feet. 
All of those depths are not marked on the chart, because owing to the 
observations which have been made under the instructions of the Min- 
isters of Marine and Fisheries by Mr. Whiteaves and others, much 
greater depths than are here marked have been discovered. For ex- 
ample, there is a depth of 313 fathoms discovered by Mr. Whiteaves, and 
Other depths of 250 and 200 fathoms. Under all cireumstances the 
depth of the channel varies from 250 to 300 fathoms up as far north as 
Point Des Monts. The fact is, the tidal wave rushes with great rapidity 
up this chanrel, and also with great volume; but when it reaches the 
contracted channel between Point Des Monts and Cape Chatte, the 
strait is too narrow for the whole body of water to pass through, and 
While one portion passes through the other returns by an eddy flood 


3402 AWARD OF THE FiSHERY COMMISSION. 


tide all the way down the coast to Gaspé. So that a vessel can sail at _ 


the full or change of the moon up the center of this deep water passage 
and reach Point Des Mounts at precisely 12 o’clock, and she may turn 
around then and go with the eddy flood and down to Gaspé by the same 
flood tide, which reaches Gagpé at 1.30 p. m. 

Q. Now, the effect of that tide is to throw every floating object close 
inshore 7—A. Yes. . 

@. And in some way it has the effect of washing the food of fishes 
inshore ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is the peculiar shape of Prince Edward Island due to that ?—A, 
Yes; that is the geological cause of the peculiar bend in the island. It 
is the result of the ages of action of the tide upon the soft sand-stone 
rock, which it bas cut and carried out to sea. 

. Now, the other portion of the tidal wave which flows over into 
this part of the gulf is split into two parts by the island of Anicosti ?— 
A. One portion runs inshore with great velocity, but is only felt three 
leagues outside. There is no sign of a tide three leagues outside, accord- 
ing to Admiral Bayfield, owing to the circumstances of the great tidal 
wave coming up here. The result is that this tidal wave being retarded 

_by friction along the coast, it arrives at Point Des Monts at a period 
entered upon the map as two hours and ten minutes, meeting the ebb 
tide coming down the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which fills up this space, 
The consequence is that the food of fish and floating objects, generally, 
are all thrown inshore around that portion of the estuary. Its influence 
is especially marked with regard to the launce, of which we have heard 
a good deal recently. 

Q. Have you been along that shore yourself?—A. I have walked 
along a considerable portion of that shore; from the Moisie River to 
Seven Islands, along a magnificent beach, and have watched the mack- 
erel wait, as it were, until the flood tide came in for the lance to come 
out of the sand, just as the cod are known to watch on the coast of 
Sweden until the flood tide drives the crabs out of the rocks and holes, 
when they feed upon them. 

‘Q. Then, if I understand you, the effect of this tide is to drive the 
food inshore and all other floating objects ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then, along the northern coast of the St. Lawrence, including the 
coast of Labrador ?—A. I don’t say anything about this portion of the 
coast of Labrador. 

Q. Then, from the Seven Islands at all events ?—A. From Mingan, 
which lies considerably to the east of Point Des Monts, it is all driven 
inshore. 

Q. What is the food of the mackerel ?—A. It consists chiefly, first of 
all, of launce and small crustaceans. 

Q. Well, there is a little fish spoken of by witnesses, called britt?— 
A. That is a popular name given to what is called the ‘‘eyebait,” and 
appears to be the young of the common herring. Although, some few 
years ago, it was considered to be of a different : species from that. 

Q. They say it is red in color ?—A. I don’t know of any britt being 
red colored. Perhaps you speak of the so-called cayenne; that is asmall 
crustacean. It occurs sometimes, in fact frequently, in such vast mul- 
titudes as to give a distinct color to the sea. 

Q. They say the mackerel eat it ?—-A. Yes; certainly; their stomachs 
are sometimes distended with it. 


Q. At all events they eat the launce fish and bait. What other food’ 


of the mackerel is brought inshore ?—A. A great many of the minute 
marine animals called pteropods, similar to the crustaceans. 


ae 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 31403 


Q. Are the squid brought inshore also?—A. Not necessarily. The 
squid is a freeswimming animal, but the mackerel food, which con- 
‘sists very largely of these crustaceans, is brought in around the north 
and south shores of the river Saint Lawrenve and the north shore of 
Prince Edward Island. . 

Q. It brings in the floating seaweed as well?—A. Yes; in fact every- 


- thing floating is brought in around this coast. 


Q. Knowing the habits of the mackerel, would you say that neces- 
sarily all along that shore must be peculiar haunts tor them ?—A. Yes. 
Q. And within three miles?—A. Generally within three miles the 
food is brought. Then there is another point which has of course to be 
taken into consideration, namely, the temperature zones. That isa 


- special reason why off the coast in the gulf the mackerel finds its food 


so near inshore. . 

Q. Explain that.—A. If you will allow me toexhibit a diagram I can 
explain it, because it shows what is meant by temperature zones in the 
gulf. I have here a diagramatic section of the gulf between the two 
points—Anticosti across Bradley Bank to Prince Edward Island. It is 
a vertical section, showing the temperature zones according to obser- 
vations made very many years ago inthe Gulf of Saint Lawrence, for 
example in the years 1832 and 1836, by Admiral Bayfield and Dr. Kelly. 
They found a series of temperature zones. At 10 fathoms it would 
be 37°, at 30 fathoms 39°, at 50 fathoms 33°, at 110 fathoms 36°. 
They were so much surprised at this that-they made repeated trials by 
bringing up the water from the bottom. The mode in which the Swedes 
and Norwegians effect the same purpose is by the using of a new ther- 
mometer. The second temperature table gives the temperature at the 
surface 51°, at 10 fathoms 389°, at 30 fathoms 32.5, at 50 fathoms 33°, 
at 80 fathoms 34°, at 110 fathoms 35 degrees. 

Iam indebted to Professor Baird for the last Swedish observations 


‘ which give temperature in the Baltic Sea. 


The effect of all this is to show where the fish go. They go into the 
warm or cold zones. It shows also where the food goes during the 
summer season. The mackerel may for particular years seem to have 
disappeared, but there is no doubt they are there, but they are in a dif- 
ferent zone of water. They are in the zones suited to their different 
habits or to the food they follow. You have a positive proof of that in 
the toll-bait used by the American fishermen. They throw toll out. 
Now, the mackerel are not lying on the bottom, but are in the zone that is 
suited to their habits. They come to the surface when the bait is thrown, 
and stay there as long as they can bear the surface temperature, and 
then go down again. 

Q. When the Americans throw their pogie bait they toll them up; then 
if they cannot stand the temperature they afterwards disappear ?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Now along the shore is the water uniform, or asa rule does it vary 
between the degrees of 45 and 37?—A. I could not state precisely the 
temperature, but the effect of the tidal wave on all the coasts of the 
guif is to mix the warm surface water with the cold substratum and 
produce a temperature suitable to the mackerel, whereas on the coast of 
Massachusetts, where the water is so warm, they are driven off into 
the cold zone off shore. Whenever the water becomes warm on the 
coast you will find the mackerel out to seain the summer, aud whenever 


it is made cold by the mixing of the tides you will find the mackerel 
‘inshore. 


Q. Now take the American coast; show the Commission where the 


» 


i ark. 


Rs 
Dae ae 4 


3404 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


cold water strikes.—A. According to Professor Baird’s reports there are | 
three notable points where the Arctic current impinges upon the Banks | 
and shoals within the limits of the United States waters and where 
the cod and mackerel spawning-grounds are found. If you will bear in 

mind the large map we had a short time ago, there were four spots. 
marked upon that map as indicating spawnivg grounds for mackerel, | 
If you will lay down upon the chart those points, which Professor Ver- ; 
rill has established as localities where the Arctic current is brought up, | 
you will find that they exactly coincide. One spot is the George’s) 
Shoals. | 

Q. For the same reason you have spoken of, that the cold Arctic eur- 
rent is forced to the surface ?—A. Yes; and the marine life found there 
is that of about 40 degrees temperature. There are three localities 
where the mackerel spawn, near Block Island, George’s Bank, and near 
Stellwagen’s Bank. ; 

@. Are those three fishing localities on the American coast, Block 
Island, George’s Bank, and Stellwagen’s Bank, in Massachusetts Bay, 
affected every year, and if so, in what way, by the action of the Galf 
Stream 7—A. The whole of the coast of the United States, south of 
Cape Cod, is affected by the Gulf Stream during the summer season, 
At Stonington the temperature is so warm even in June that cod and 
haddock cannot remain there. They are all driven off by this warm. 
influx of the summer flow of the Gulf Stream. The same observation 
applies to certain portions of the New England coast. 

Q. Is that the reason, in your judgment, why mackerel are not found 
there inshore at all except in spring ?—A. That is chiefly the reason 
why they are found on the coast of the United States close inshore 
mostly in the spring and fall. They come again in the fall as soon as 
the water is cool enough. It is quite possible that owing to the preva- 
lence of certain winds the temperature of the water may be sufficiently 
cool to permit them, even during the summer months, occasionally to 
come quite close inshore. The Arctic current, coming down from the 
Spitzbergen seas, passing the southern extremity of Greenland, turning 
round and coming down to Labrador, and so on, reaches Newfoundland, 
Nova Scotia, and part of the coast of the United States, and passes 
underneath the Gulf Stream. Occasionally it comes out in the form of 
strips in the Gulf Stream, forming what are termed the different cold 
currents of the gulf. The difference in temperature between the Arcti¢ 
current on the George’s Shoals, for example, and 10 or 20 miles south- 
west, is from 20 to 25°. The difference between the temperature on the 
Grand Banks and the Gulf Stream, even that distance from the coast 
of America, is 23°, according to Humboldt. The temperature of the 
Gulf Stream, as given on the large map, is marked in several places at 
783° in June; the temperature just south of Long Island is marked 
723° in July. 

Q. Does the Gulf Stream swing in at Block Island 7—A. The summer 
flow of the Gulf Stream swings in with every southern wind, as far as 
Halifax Harbor, and brings with it southern fishes. 

(. Have you noticed any and what difference between the marine 
life on the coast of the United States and that on the cost of the Do- 
minion ?—A. Yes; the marine life on the coast of the United States, in 
some parts, is very similar to certain portions on the coast of the Domin- 
ion. For instance, north of Cape Cod, in all those parts of the sea where 
the depth is pver 50, 60, or 70 fathoms, the character of the marine life 
is identical with the marine life on the sixty-fathom line of soundings 
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; but it is only where the cold Aretice cur- 


‘ 
~~ 4 


eS 
wx 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3405 


‘rent finds its way. On George’s Shoals the marine life is almost of an 
-, Aretic character, according to Verrill, and it resembles an oasis of cold- 
-plooded animals surrounded by the Gulf Stream. 

Q. Have you ever turned your attention to see whether the present 
‘mode of fishing on the American coast is capable of, or likely to, de- 
_plete that coast of its codfish and mackerel? State your views.—A., 
* With regard to that subject, if you will allow me, | will exhibit a map 
»or.chart, showing the distribution of the cod in Europe and America. 
/(Ohart exhibited.) You will find by an examination of this map that it 
is only where extreme cold water exists that cod is found throughout 
the year; and upon the American coast it is ouly where the Arctie cur- 
‘rent strikes, that.cod is found through the year. 

Q. I wish to know from you whether the mode of fishing in the United 
‘ Sta’es will deplete those waters of the cod and mackerel, or not ?—A. 

Considering the mode in which the cod and mackerel spawn, I think 

‘ there can beno doubt whatever that it is quite possible through human 

/ agency to destroy, as has been destroyed on the coast of New England, 
| the cod fishery, and also, to a considerable extent, the mackerel fisher- 
\ ies, simply because the area of cold water, which is absolutely necessary 
| for the sustenance of those fish, is so comparatively small, and is being 

‘ constantiy reduced during the summer season. The proportion of the 

) area of cold water opposite the coast of the United States, compared 

| with the area of cold water opposite the coast of the Dominion, is as 45 

| to 200; in other words, if the United States has 45,000 square miles swept 
| by the Arctic current the Dominion has 200,000 square miles; and every 
| portion of the food supply which comes to the United States has to pass 

) through Dominion waters, or by the waters of Newfoundland, simply be- 
/ eause the Arctic current is constantly bringing the original supply of 
‘ food from the north. Although our seas appear to be very abundant in 
‘ life, yet, nevertheless, they are almost deserts compared with the won- 
| derful abundance of life in the northern seas, particularly on the Lab- 
' rador and Greenland coasts during the summer months. The sea, at 
| times, appears to be perfectly thick with life, and to such an extraordi- 
| nary extent does life exist in the northern seas, that the thermometer is 
» very materially influenced during a single night by animal life. Ina 
| few hours the animal life disappears utterly, and the thermometer sinks 
| two, three, or four degrees, and the water becomes colder. On another 
' day the zone of life rises again, but it is always being driven to and fro 
| by means of the Arctic current, aud it follows the course of the great 
| stream of ice which produces the cold in Labrador and the cold gener- 
' ally throughout the Western World. 

Q. I understandsthat where the Arctic current strikes, there are the 

- fishes to be found which require about 37 degrees of cold !—A. We are 

indebted to the Arctic current exclusively for all the cold-water fish, cod, 
mackerel, haddock, pollock, hake, ling, and beside all the minor fish on 
which they feed, such as caplin, smelt, launce, and added to these a vast 
number of medusa, various kinds of shell-fish and star-fish, all of which 
are most abundant in the northern seas. The Banks on the shores of 
Greenland are richer than any cod-banks in any other part of the world, 
and have been so described by various naturalists who have visited 
there. 

Q. Take the George cod-banks or any other cod-banks opposite the 
United States coast, has the supply of fish on those Banks materially 
diminished of late years? I wish you to contrast the fishing there with 
the fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland or that on the Banks 
to the south of Newfoundland.—A. Personally I know nothing about 


3406 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


the quantities of fish taken on any portion of the coast of the United 


States, but I have derived the information I have obtained from the re- 
ports of Commissioner Baird and his assistants, and also from conver- 
sations with fishermen. Now we kuow, for instance, that George’s Banks 
are not more than 35 years old as a fishing ground. At first it was fre- 


quented exclusively for halibut. The halibut seemed to reign there 


supreme. They were finally caught out, as fishermen say. 
Q. Halibut is a powerful fish?—A. It is a much more powerfal fish 


than cod, and drives the cod from all favorite places of resort. Then — 


after the halibut had been driven away cod began to increase. I would 
here say that cod and halibut were taken together in the first instance, 
but much more halibut than cod. The cod taken were of large size, as 
is always the case when afishing-ground is first established on any banks; 
then they gradually diminish in size and in number except in certain 
localities. Now, although I know nothing of my own knowledge, never- 
theless from conversations I have had with fishermen, there is no doubt 
it is more difficult now to get a cargo of large cod, for example, not- 
withstanding the extensive use of bultows, on Georges and in every lo- 
cality on the coast of the United States, than it was when the fishery 
was first commenced ; and in the same way on our own coast. 

Q. You mean the trawl ?—A. Yes. The reason why [ make use of 
the term * bultow ” is because the term “trawling” is applied to a totally 
different mode of fishiug in Europe. ‘ 

Q. You mean the long line and minor lines from it?—A. Yes. 

Q. Take our own fisheries; as far as you are aware are they practi- 
cally inexhaustible ?—A. As far as all experience goes, judging from 
history and what we see at the present time, there are certain locali- 
ties practically inexhaustible. There is no portion of the world where 
there is such a constant and unvarying supply of codfish as in the 
Straits of Belle Isle. It has been so for the past 300 years, and you 
may even go farther back, to the time of the old French forts and towns, 
including the town of Brest, the ruins of which still exist on the coast 
of the Straits of Belle Isle. From the year 1590 down to the present 
time, the whole of the Straits of Belle Isle, a distance of 60 miles, have 
been famed for the uniform quantity of cod. The same holds good with 
regard to the Grand Banks and Newfoundland. The same also applies 
to that amazing fishing-ground at the south coast of Newfoundland, 
where the codfish winter at a depth of from 150 to 200 fathoms, and 
where they can be taken constantly during the winter. Compared with 
European fisheries, the Newfoundland fisheries and Labrador fisheries 
are far superior in every particular. The character of the Norwegian 
fisheries, four instance, is very remarkable. The su@mer Norwegian 
fisheries are prosecuted on the northern coast, and are identical in 
regard to character of fish with the Labrador fisheries. The only large 
fish caught are taken at Loffoden, Romsdal, and another locality. But 
the quantity of fish there taken, compared with what is taken on the 
Newfoundland coast, is on an average as the proportion to 3 to5; where 
5 fish or 5 quintals are taken on tbe coast of Newfoundland, 3 fish or 3 
quintals only are taken on the whole coast of Norway. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 


Q. That is including Loffoden Islands?—A. Yes; the exports of Nor- 


way very rarely exceed 590,000 or 600,000 quintals. 
By Mr. Thomson: 
Q. Among the fish for which we are indebted to the Arctic current, 


I do not recollect that you named herring; that is one ?—A. Certainly. 
I did not name herring, but it was an inadvertence. 


. a 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3407 


Q. You have spoken of the effect of the tide at Prince Edward Island, 
and as to there being not only water at the temperature the mackerel 
requires, but also the tide. Suppose a body of witnesses swore that 
two-thirds of the catch of mackerel, for instance, in Bay St. Lawrence, 
are taken within three marine miles of the coast, and another body of 
witnesses swore that the larger body of the fish is taken outside, and 
the smaller body inside, which would be the party whose evidence would 
agree with vour scientific knowledge of what ought to be the result ?— 
A. I would say, as far as the Gulf of St. Lawrence is concerned, that 
scientific evidence all tends toward throwing the food near the shore. 
and it is the food which attracts the fish. , 

Q. You would, therefore, be inclined to think that the large quantity 
of mackerel would be taken inshore ?—A. Certainly. 1 Ailes 

Q. Are you aware that the Dominion Government of late years have 
taken great pains to restock the rivers ’—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any idea whether they would have any appreciable effect 
upon the maintenance of the sea fisheries 7—A. I think there can be no 
doubt.that in the course of two or three years the_effect will be most 
marked, but it takes some time to restock a river. The principal opera- 
tion, however, is no doubt perfect. It is the manner of restoring again 
toits natural condition the food supply of the fish which formerly existed 
on the coast, and that is being done in various localities with a!| possible 
rapidity. You allude, I suppose, more particularly to the fish ascending 
their spawning rivers by means of fish-ways over mill-dams, and restock- 
ing rivers in that way and also restocking by means of the ova of different 
varieties of fish, salmon, white fish, bass and others. 

Q. Those measures have an important effect on the sea fishery 7—A. 
A very important effect on the sea fishery, simply because they bring 
the sea-fish inshore. The cause of the sea-fish gradually ceasing to come 
inshore in various localities is the destruction of the former lure which 
brought them in, namely, the bait, the fry, young fish. 

Q. Has the fact of the coasts of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Isl- 
and being studded with small islands any effect on the value of the 
fisheries, and, if so, what ?—A. The orographic teatures of every coast 
line exert an amazing influence on the fisheries. A sandy shore, sup- 
posing the marine climate is fitted for it, is characterized by an extra- 
ordinary development of shell-fish ; whereas a shore which contains 
many bays and promontories is distinguished by the ordinary sea-fish 
and by other classes of animal life—crustaceans for instance. Thus, for 
example, when you get on the coast of the United States as tar south as 
Long Island, New Jersey, and Delaware, the coast line chauges alto- 
gether and with it the character of the marine life. There is there an 
abundance of all forms of sbell-fish, and also many forms of warmer 
water-fish which come in from the Gulf Stream. The shell-fish on our 
coast, although the marine climate is well suited to certain varieties, 
such as the whelk and various kinds of clams, still the quantity which 
is found on our shores is comparatively small, except in certain localities 
where there are banks of particular description. Wide expanses of 
sandy beach are especially adapted to be the home of the shell-fish ; 
whereas, on the contrary, jutting shores, headlands, and rocky promon- 
tories, are especially adapted to the crustacean food for ordinary sea-fish. 


By Mr. Dana: . 
Q. You are testifying to a large extent from the report ?—A. I am. 


* By Mr. Thomson : 
Q. The scientific knowledge you have is not to be altered when given 


+ 


3408 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


verbally, simply because you have written the same things in a report?— __ 


A. No. 
Q. You have spoken of islands along the coast. Some of our wit- 


nesses spoke of catching fish in eddies. Is not the effect of the islands 
to mackerel eddies 7?—-A. The food is carried backwards and forwards in 
the eddies. 

Q. Do the eddies preserve the food for the fish ?—A. Yes; in a very 
remarkable way. I had special opportunities last summer of sailing 


among eddies for hundreds of miles on the coast of Labrador and of — 


observing many of the remarkable phenomena connected with this 
food. 

Q. What is the effect of the eddies ?—A. To concenirate food. 

Q. And they will consequently be frequented by the fish 7—A. Yes; 
it is with that view I have described on these charts the movements of 
the mackerel. 

@. How do the eddies preserve the food ?—A. They move in circles 
and ellipses and prevent the food from being carried away. The swing 
of the tides depends altogether on the locality where they may happen 
to be. The swing of the tide in the Bay of Fundy—I mention the Bay 
of Fundy because the tides are developed to a greater extent there 
than on any other locality on this continent—is about 35 miles. Fish 
fuod is carried up the bay about thirty-five miles and brought back to 
the same place with the turn of the tide, thus continually swinging 
backward and forward for 35 miles for months together. It frequently 
happens that during the winter season vessels caught in the ice will for 
three or four weeks swing backward and forward in the middle of the 
bay. The swing depends on the heighth of the tide, because that gov- 
-erns its velocity, and it varies from 15 to 35 miles in linear extent. 

Q. When practical fishermen state they get fish in the eddies, that 
would agree with your scientific information ?—A. Quite so. 

Q. In the same way, you say that the statement that more fish is 
caught inshore than out in the gulf would square with your scientific 
knowledge ?—A. More mackerel. 

Q. On the American coast, is there a great number of large manu- 
factories on the rivers entering the sea? Are you aware of that; and 
state what influence the American manufactories have on the fisheries ?— 
A. I could not say that the American manufactories have any effect. 
I think the quantity of material brought down in the rivers has no 
effect on the sea fish, only on the river fish. Damage would be pro- 
duced by mill-dams obstructing the passage up, but the sea is a reser- 
voir so vast, and constantly moving, that a small quantity of foreign 
material introduced into a river has no effect on the sea. 

Q. What is the effect of throwing overboard gurry on fishing- 
grounds ?—A. That depends entirely on the locality. Where there isa 
strong current there is little or no effect at all. When fishermen throw 
overboard, as they frequently do, the back-bone of the codfish when fish 
are cleaned on deck, it has a very prejudicial effect on those fish which 
feed on the offal. That is explained in this way: The cod, as fish do as 
a general rule, take the food head foremost. The reason is that the fins 
would present an obstruction to their passage down the gullet of the 
cod, but when they take the fish head foremost they are easily passed 
down. When the back-bone of the fish is swallowed, in the endeavors 
which the cod constantly makes to throw up, it sticks in the stomach 
and remains there, and the cod are very frequently taken in what fish- 
ermen Call a logy condition, with a portion of the vertebra penetrating 
the entrails. That frequently happens when gurry is thrown overboard. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3409 


With regard to the action of gurry and fish offal in the harbors of New- 
foundland, that will depend entirely on the season of the year, and also 
upon the locality where it happens to be thrown. I consider it has a 
very prejudicial effect inshore, and I have described this in a paper 
which I published some time since. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 


Q. Will you now state what you know about the distribution of food 
and the habits of the cod, and your reasons for the great abundance of 
the fish on the Newfoundland shores ?—A. In the first place, with re- 
‘gard to the spawning habits of the cod. The cod is known to spawn 
during every month of the year on the coast of America. In Trinity 

_ Bay—I select Trinity Bay as one large place, where the water is not 

_ less than 300 fathoms—cod spawn during six months of the year. We 
know this, from the fact that the spawn dealers get the spawn from the 
fishermen during that period; moreover, the fishermen catch the cod 
with the spawn running from it. In the second place, the Straits of 
Belle Isle is the great spawning place. Cod chiefly spawn there in 

_ August, at that period of the year when the water has been cooled 

' down to a great extent by salt-water ice. You will observe an immense 

_ difference between ordinary fresh-water ice and salt-water ice produced 
by the sea-water itself. 

Q. Point out the spawning localities of the cod on the Newfoundland 

- coast.---A. First, there is the Straits of Belle Isle, particularly round 
about Belle Isle Island. In the second place, along the Newfoundland 
coast there are Notre Dame Bay, Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay. I have 
ne special knowledge about Conception Bay. The cod spawn from May 
to August all along the south coast of the island, and on the north part 
of the Grand Banks. 

; Q. That may be considered as the great spawning ground for the cod 
and the great codfishery in the world ?--A. Certainly it is, all around 
that coast; I also include part of the Great Banks. I know in regard 
only to a small portion of the Grand Banks asa place where they spawn. 
I have no doubt they spawn all over the Banks, but I have only received 

' information about a certain portion. There is a remarkable fact with 
respect to the spawning of cod, that while they spawn in May on one 
side of the entrance to the gulf, they spawn in September on the other 
side, and that arises from the simple fact that the water is not cold 
enough till September. With regard to the mode of spawning of cod 
and all these fish, it is important to bearin mind that they spawn in mid- 
water, with the male underneath the female. That is also the way with 
mackerel. Almost all sea-fish, except those enumerated by Commis- 
sioner Baird the other day, aud two or three I will add immediately, 
Spawn in mid-water. You can always distinguish between the egg of 
the fish whose spawn floats at the surface and the egg of the fish whose 
Spawn adheres to the bottom. The eggs of all those fish whose spawn 
floats has the orifice through which the fructifying principle of the male 
enters always downward. The eggs of all those fish whose spawn is at 
the bottom has the orifice always upwards. The milt of the male is 
‘always poured over the eggs of those adhering to the bottom and un- 
der those floating : 

Q. Will you state your views with regard to the bait generally on the 
Shores of Newfoundland and the Dominion; also the habits of the bait 
itself, the places where found, general distribution, and its effect upon 
the cod-fishery ?—A. With regard to herring. which is perhaps gener- 
ally known to be the best, both in Europe and America, you cau always 
Gatch fish with herring. 


214 F 


. 


te 
4 
Fa H 


3410 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. When upon herring, I will ask you with regard to the south coast - 


of Newfoundland as a herring spawning ground. What are your views 
with regard to it?—A. I only know of three or four localities where 
herring has been observed to spawn, although I have not a shadow of 
doubt it does spawn to an enormous extent upon the southern coast. 
Q. Professor Baird stated that the southern coast of Newfoundland 
is the great spawning ground for herring. Do you concur with him in 
that statement?—A. Certainly. It is oneof the great spawning grounds. 


There is not a shadow of doubt that the herring spawns from Cape Cod — 


to the Straits of Belle Isle. 

Q. Professor Baird designates the southern coast of Newfoundland as 
the great spawning ground for herring of America. Do you agree with 
him ?—A. Yes, altogether. There are very erroneous views entertained 
by fishermen with respect to the spawning grounds of herring, and also 
with regard to the spawning grounds of all fish whose spawn adheres to 
the bottom. The herring spawns in water from 5 to 130 fathoms in 
depth. Caplin, instead of spawning only in great number on beaches, 


as is generally supposed, spawn also in 30 fathoms. The launce also — 


spawn on the Grand Banks, where they have been caught full of ripe 


spawn, and they spawn also to some extent on the Newfoundland coast. ) 
Q. Professor Baird pointed out Grand Manan as one of the great — 


spawning grounds for herring. Do you concur with him ?—A. Cer- 
tainly. 


Q. Having stated your views with regard to herring, would you be — 


kind enough to continue to answer the question I put to you with regard 
to bait?—A. The season of the year, excluding herring, determines to 
a very considerable extent the bait which is used, especially on the coast 
of Newfoundland. The first kind of bait you have there is caplin, and 

caplin is found only as far as the southern portion of the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence. It is essentially a cold-water fish. It is found in immense 


quantities off Greenland, to an enormous extent upon the northern por- — 


tion of Norway, where the cod-fishing in the summer season is not called 
summer cod-fishing, but the caplin fishery, simply from the cod following 
the caplin inshore. The next bait, as a general rule—but it varies very 
much eack year—is squid. Sometimes launce comes in before squid. 
I have heard of one or two cases of squid coming in as early as June. 
@. Have you any reason to give why the bait-fish approach our 
shores—the herring, squid, caplin, and launce?—A. I think there is a 
reason, but I think the reason that is generally stated, viz, that they 
approach the shore for the purpose of spawning, is begging the ques- 
tion. I think it is doubtful whether they approach the shore only for 
that purpose. They approach the shore because they are driven by 
predaceous fishes which feed on them. The cod follows the caplin 
and drives it inshore, owing to the circumstance that during the spawn- 
ing season, as far as known, all fish have peculiar odors developed. The 
caplin has the cucumber odor, and so strongly is it developed during the 
spawning season, that Newfoundland fishermen will tell. you they can 
smell caplin for miles. I have smelt it 50, 60, or 80 yards and not seen 
any, but there have been men before me with a bag of fresh caplin. 
The smelt has also the odor of the cucumber, which appears to be de- 
veloped during the spawning season, and lures the cod inshore. The 
herring has also a peculiar odor, but it is totally different from that of 
the cucumber. And we havea particular reason why it is developed 
only during the spawning season, viz, that afforded by the remarkable 
phenomenon which exists in Newfoundland in the winter. All along 
the southern coast, and I have no doubt on the coast of the United 


in * =— >). 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3411 


States, herring are lying under the land during winter at depths of 
from 15 to 30 fathoms. There are lying a little farther out seaward, 
especially on the coast of Newfoundland, from one to two miles out, 
but in a different zone, millions of cod. You have the herring and its 
prey lying close together, but they never come in conflict with each 
other during that season of the year. 

Q. Why do they not?—A. The cod is found in from 150, 180, and 
200 fathoms. The large herring is, comparatively speaking, near the 
surface—at a depth of 30 fathoms or so, according to the zone of 
temperature. The cod is feeding on the young herring, which are found 
deeper down. When you catch winter cod you will almost invariably 
find herring or caplin in their stomachs. If it were not so, the species 
would very soon be destroyed; it seems to be a providential arrange- 
ment by which the species is preserved. It is the same with regard to 
many other fish. Their young separate from them and go into the dif- 
ferent zones of water during different periods of the year. The ques- 
tion you asked me some time ago with respect to the island is another 
illustration. Itis the youngor fry of the herring which go to the edge of 
the great deeps off our coast. You have only to go 100 miles to the 
south of Halifax and you plunge down to a depth of 3 miles. From a 
depth of 90 fathoms you plunge down a mountain range, only 30 miles 
south of Cape Sable, with a depth of three miles, or 20,000 feet. So it 
is at the edge of the Grand Bank, and all along the coast of Newfound- 


- land. Even in Trinity Bay you have a depth of 1,800 feet. In these 


deep marine valleys and on the mountain ridges you have fish distributed 
in zones of temperature during the winter. All along the steep banks 
you have zones of vegetation and of animal life. At a depth of 1,600 
feet you discern enormous quantities of sponges, and as you rise to the 
crest at Sable Island or Grand Bank you come upon an enormous mul- 
titude of star-fish of all ages and sizes, and the star-fish always approach 
the land or shoals in the spring to feed upon the shell fish there. They 
feed on the enormous multitudes of whelks found all over the Labrador 
and Newfoundland coasts, and you can see them in very calm weather 
encircling the whelks and sucking the contents into their protruded 
stomachs. 

Q. The conformation’of the coast of Newfoundland, the depth of wa- 
ter, the deep bays and inlets, and numerous islands—do you think these 
conditions peculiarly adapted to constitute the home of the codfish ?— 
A. Yes. I think there is no part of the world where, owing to the oro- 
graphic features of the coast-line, all the conditions of life for the cod 
are developed to such an extent as on the northeast coast of Newfound- 
land, the northern portion of the Grand Banks, and the southern part of 
the,island. The proof is afforded by the amazing multitude of seals 
which come every winter, to the extent of three or four millions, and 
they feed largely upon codfish. They are found bringing the codfish 
on the ice. Where the ice drifts into deep bays you will very frequently 
find the seals, especially the old seals, bringing codfish and placing them 
on the surface of the ice. 

Q. In what month of the year does that occur ?—A. From February 
to the middle of April. 

Q. Will you state generally your views as to the progress and devel- 
opment of the Newfoundland fisheries since they have been known, so 
far as your information goes ?—A. I speak now of the Newfoundland 
fisheries as distinct from the Bank fisheries. c 

Q. Iam speaking now of the Newfoundland inshore fisheries. You 
are aware that from the coast of Newfoundland the Bank fishery is not 


3412 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


carried on, except to the extent of three, four, or five vessels?—A. Yes. _ 


About 40 years ago the Bank fishery, so far as regards Newfoundland, 
entirely ceased, and the fishery has since been carried on altogether 
within shore, and is extending year by year farther and farther up the 
Labrador. As far as my observation goes, and as far as statistics go, 
I am able to show that the increase during the last 60 or 10 years—since, 
for instance, 1804—has been almost perfectly uniform, when you take 
into consideration the increase in the population of the country. Of 


course, it is to a certain extent dependent upon that, and subject also to— 


those fluctuations which continually take place in our fisheries—in the 
mackerel and cod fisheries—and in the marine climate on the American 
coast, also in the herring fishery. 

Q. I think you have prepared a diagram showing the progress in the 
fisheries ?—A. Yes. (Diagram produced.) This shows the annual flue- 
tuations in the exports of codfish from Newfoundland from 1804 to 1876, 
and a continuous increase since 1850, since when there has always been 
a mean of one million quintals. It reached one million in 1842, and after 
that it either approached to or rose above it continuously. 

Q. Those diagrams you prepared from authentic records, I believe ?— 
A. They are so prepared. 

Q. Then from 1804 to 1876 there has been a uniform increase in the pro- 
ductions of the Newfoundland fisheries ?—A. I would scarcely use the 
word “ uniform,” otherwise one would suppose the increase was contin- 


uous from year to year; but take a group of years,-say five years, and. 


the increase is continuous. 

Q. You are aware of the different modes of prosecuting the fishery on 
the island of Newfoundland both by British and French, I believe 7— 
A. Yes. 

Q. Is fhe cod seine used there to any extent ?—A. It is largely used 
in the deep bays of Newfoundland, and also by the French on what is 
called the French shore; that is to say, on the northern coast of New- 
foundland and in the northern portion of the gulf. 

Q. Between Cape Ray and Quirpon?—A. I mean more particularly 
between Cape St. John and Quirpon. The seine is largely used along 
this coast. 1 saw it myself largely used there Jast year; and I saw the 
seine used by Newfoundlanders in Trinity Bay. 

Q. You know as a fact that it is used ?—A. Yes; and largely. 

Q. At what season of the year is the cod seine used ?—A. This is the 
case during what is called the caplin season. 

Q. That is when the caplin are on the coast in great abundance?—A. 
Yes; when they first come in. 

Q. And when the cod are also there in great abundance?—A. Yes. 


Q. Have you any knowledge regarding the quantity of cod taken 


in these large seines ?—A. Personally, I have no such knowledge. I 
have never counted them, but I have seen a very large number so 
taken. Admiral Cloue states, in his report, that frequently 30,000 are 
taken in a cod seine. 

Q. In one haul?—A. Yes. The statement that from 10,000 to 15,000 
and 30,000 cod are so taken at a haul also frequently occurs in the re- 
ports of Newfoundland fishery officials. . 

Q. From 50 to 250 quintals are thus taken in one haul of the seine?— 
A. Yes, fully ; and, in many instances, more, because sometimes a school 
1s composed of large fish. 

Q. That is 250 quintals of what are called green fish?—A. Yes; be- 
fore they are dried and prepared for market. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3413 


Q. And this occurs frequently?—A. I believe so; as I have said, I 
never saw it myself. 

Q. In order to use these seines to great advantage,.is it not very de- 
sirable that the fish should not be at all disturbed on their grounds in 

_ these bays?—A. Yes; otherwise the schools would be broken up. 

Q. Then, if the bait be disturbed to any considerable extent, and it 
goes off, the cod would also be disturbed and follow?—A. Yes; that 
necessarily follows. 

Q. Now, with regard to the French, how do they carry on the fishe- 
ries; are you aware? I do not now refer to St. Pierre and Miquelon, 
but to other portions of the coast.—A. I have seen the French fisher- 
men at several harbors on the northeast coast of Newfoundland. 

Q. Will you mention the time when the fishing-vessels arrive from 
France, and the tonnage of their vessels, and describe the means and 
particular mode in which they carry on the fishery from their vessels in 
one of these harbors on the northeast coast of Newfoundland where 
they have the privilege of fishing 7—A. I will describe what I saw in 
the harbor of Fleur de Lis, which is situated on the northeast coast of 
Newfoundland. It has always been a rather celebrated fishing station. 
I think that three large vessels were there last year, and one of them 
was a very large brig. 

Q. What was her size ?—A. I could not say exactly, but I think that 
she was of 220 or 240 tons burden. I have a list of the tonnage of all 
of them, which I obtained from Admiral Cloue’s report. 

Q. Without going into the particulars, I will simply ask you with re- 
gard to the tonnage of these vessels—between what figures does their 
average tonnage vary 7—A. Between 200 and 300 tons; some of the 
vessels on the northeast shore are of larger build. 

Q. At what season of the year do they arrive ?—A. They arrive as 
soon as the ice leaves the coast—in other words, as soon as they can get 
in; very frequently they first go to St. Pierre and Miquelon, and if 
they find that the ice is off shore, they leave there about the middle of 
June. The first thing they do is to prepare their stages, and their fish- 
ing-houses and bakery. They are always well provided with fresh 
bread. They generally when they observe the cod come in after the 
caplin, devote themselves in the first instance to seining them; as soon 

- as the cod leaves the shore, which they do after the caplin has spawned, 
they then first devote themselves to the taking of bait by means of bait 
seines. They require a constant supply of fresh bait; they then devote 
themselves to what is called the process of line-fishing, and they con- 
tinue this from day to day; in the meanwhile they always have their 
watchers out, watching for the schools of cod; and the moment that 
such a school is noticed they immediately take their seines and seine 
the cod; and this they continue until September, bringing the fruits of 
their day’s work inshore, letting the splitting and cleaning and drying 
be done on shore by a regular corps of persons whom they bring out 
for the purpose, completing their operations in the same way as New- 
foundlanders are accustomed to do. 

Q. Then they remove from the coast of Newfoundland with their car- 
goes of cod in September or October ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do they leave their stages in charge of some one ?—A. Yes; these 
are generally left in charge of some resident. 

Q. How many menare usually employed in these vessels !—A. I could 
not say precisely. I do not know, but the number is very large. _ 

Q. Could you give it approximately 7—A. The number is 60 or 70. 


“ 


; 3 
a ee ae 


3414 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How many dories or boats have they ?—A. I could not say. I 
never entered into those particulars. 

Q. When do the mackerel appear on the Magdalen Islands ?—A. The 
mackerel come in there from the 60-fathom line of the soundings, or 
wherever they may winter, about the last of May, from the last of May 
to the 12th of June. In some instances a good many mackerel are 
caught there before the 1st of June; that is to say, the so-called 
spring mackerel or lean mackerel. I have prepared a table showing 
the period of their arrival during perhaps 14 or 15 years. 

Q. Have you that table with you?—A. Yes. This always takes 
place about one month after the arrival of the herring. In 1857 the 
mackerel arrived there on June 1; in 1860, on June 1; in 1862, on June 
4; in 1863, on June 12; in 1864, on June 6; in 1865, on May 30; in 
1866, on May 29; in 1867,on June 2. I can get no record for 1868 and 
1869, but in 1871 they arrived on May 31. For 1872 I have no record. 
In 1873, on June 5; in 1874, on June 7; in 1875, on June 8, and in 1876, 
on June 6. 

Q. How do these periods of time correspond with the appearance of 
the mackerel on the coast of the United States ?—A. There are gener- 
ally from 6 to 8 days’ difference between the appearances. I have here 
a record of their appearance on the coast of the United States, and I 
find that the dates vary in a remarkable manner each year. For in- 
stance, at the Waquoit Weir, in Massachusetts Bay, in 1875 the mack- 
erel appeared on the 25th of April, and in 1872 on the 10th of May, 
showing a difference in time of 15 days, whereas at the Magdalen Isl- 
ands they appeared in 1871 on the 31st of May, and in 1872 on the 20th 
of June, showing a difference in time of 21 days, though this must be a 
mistake. 


By Sir Alexander Galt: 


Q. Would you turn back to your table concerning their arrival at the 
Magdalen Islands ?—A. It must be a mistake. I find that here for 
1872 no date is given. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 
Q. Could you, by reference, correct that ?—A. O, yes. 
Q. Could you do it to-morrow ?—A. Perhaps I had better do it pre- 
viously. 
Q. ‘Will you describe the different forms and descriptions of ice, and 
how these operate upon or affect the fishery 7—A. There are three forms 
of ice which exercise an influence over the fisheries in our waters ; these 


three forms are, first of all, fresh-water ice as it occurs in the form of 


icebergs; secondly, the ice which oceurs in the form of salt-water ice; 
and thirdly, the ice which occurs in the form of ground ice, or ice which 
is formed at the bottom of the sea. The most important form of all is 
the floe ice, or salt-water ice; but icebergs have little or no effect at all 
on the movements of the fish, simply because the cold which they pro- 
duce is always brought to the surface, owing to the small specific gravity 
of the water resulting from the meltiig of icebergs; but the floe ice is 
composed of salt-water ice, and always has atemperature of about three 
degrees below the ordinary freezing point of water. _ That is due to the 
circumstance of a very considerable quantity of brine being entangled 
in the process of freezing, and the result of this is that wherever salt- 
water ice is drifted into a sea area it cools the sea area down to its own 
temperature, which is never less at the bottom of the ice floe than 29 
degrees, and sometimes even 28 degrees. Then, again, when the salt- 
water ice melts, the coldest portions always necessarily melt first, and 


alt 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3415 


the result is that the brine of the ice being of a specific gravity much 
greater than the surrounding sea water, this very cold, heavy water 
sinks down to the bottom of the sea, or to a zone which is of the same 
specific gravity. Hence the result is those different zones in the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence which are described in these papers. 


By Mr. Doutre: 


‘ Q. Are you correct in stating that the coldest parts of the ice melt 


first ?—A. Yes. This does look strange at the first blush; but when 
you think of it, you will see that the coldest parts must melt first. Now 
the effect of that is that wherever you have salt-water ice, which is 
raining down a stream of cold, the moment it gets to the fish, they will 
not cross this line of cold. The effect of this is most marvelous in the 
distribution of various kinds of fish in the spring of the year; and, be- 
sides, the effect is more marvelous still in the distribution of these 
zones of cold throughout the gulf, or zones of cold as recently found 
throughout the Baltic Sea, producing those zones of temperature ino 
which the fish roam during the summer months and find their food. 


By the President: 

Q. What is the third kind of ice?—A. The third kind of ice is ice 
that only forms in the coldest waters. It is formed at the bottom of the 
sea. In a letter which I recently received from Dr. Carpenter, he de- 
scribes the formation of this ice in the Baltic Sea. It is known in 
America, especially in relation to fresh-water ice, as anchor-ice: in our 
rivers it very frequently is found, especially in rapid rivers. There is 
one condition required for its formation in the sea. You must have a 
rapid current, or otherwise it cannot form. This arises from the circum- 
stance that the water is reduced down to the temperature of freezing 
salt water, which is 27 degrees; the sea freezes at 27 degrees only, or at 
25 degrees in perfectly still water ; and when it is brought down to that 
temperature, the moment that the cold water impinges on any surface 
ice crystals start out from it, and these ice crystals accumulate one on 
the top of the other until they become so light that they break loose 
and rise to the surface; hence it is that it is always necessary with re- 
gard to seal nets—which, during the winter season, are sunk from 18 to 
20 and 22 fathoms, by the Newfoundland sealers, on their coast, or on 
the coast of Labrador—to watch these nets, for fear that the corks, 
during a perfectly clear night, in a rapid current, should become in- 
crusted with icy particles; and if this happens the whole net will sud- 
denly become incrusted with the icy particles, rise to the surface, and 
be carried away, causing the loss of the net. They always find that 
fish, or anything that may be caught in the nets—seals, for example, if 
they remain for an hour or so in the nets when the anchor-ice is form- 
ing—are frozen. One important point of practical importance with re- 
gard to the action of ice, to which I would direct attention, is that which 
the Swedes and Norwegians have now, under the supervision of the Nor- 
wegian Government, introduced, namely, the finding out before fishing 
operations commence the zone or depth at which the fish are to be found. 


‘This is the first thing that is done. On the great fishing-grounds on 


the coast of Norway, for instance, their first step is to find the depth at 
which the fish are to be found, and whether it be 10, 50, or 90 fathoms, 
they will sink their nets to that zone. The way in which they find the 
zone in which the herring are floating is by means of a very narrow 
net, which they will set, for example, at night. Such a net will be, for 
instance, 100 fathoms deep—a common seining net inverted. This they 
sink, and when they take it up they find fish entrapped in it at the zone 


3416 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


or depth in which the fish are to be found. They then set their seines Bi 


according to the depth at which the fish are found. 

Q. Do you mean to say that the zone where the fish are to be found 
is ascertained by the government ?—A. Yes; this is done under the su- 
pervision of the government. — 

Q. For the information of the fishermen?—A. Yes; and the fisher- 


men are also provided with thermometers to ascertain the zone or depths . 


at which the fish are to be found. I ought to say that they did not 
provide the fishermen with thermometers for that particular purpose, but 


for the testing of the temperature of the sea-water, with the view of ascer- 


taining the days and hours when the herring fishery is most likely to be 
productive ; and in Scotland the fishermen now are provided with ther- 
mometers ; that is to say, those who are capable of using thermometers. 
So it also is with respect to the Dutch Government, which has provided 
most of their fishermen with thermometers to ascertain the temperature 
of the sea, with a view to instructing them as to the period and day or 
hour when they should sink their nets, how deep they shall sink them ; 
and I have no doubt that these thermometers will, in the course of two 
or three years, become an agent of very great value with regard to our 
fisheries, enabling us to ascertain the depth at which they are likely 
to find herring in the fall, or, if we can, in the spring, in the different 
zones of water. 


By Mr. Whiteway: 

@. Have you any other information to impart regarding the effect of 
these descriptions of ice upon the fisheries ?—A. I have prepared some 
diagrams, but I did not think them worthy of remark, and consequently 
1 did not bring them with me. These are merely to show fisbing places 


in the bays, but they lead to results: which, if viewed in a proper manner, © 


can be properly interpreted. Very frequently you find, for example, cod 
coming in without caplin and caplin coming in without cod ; sometimes, 
too, you find tons of dead caplin lying upon the surface of the beach. 
Now, I think that the explanation of this factis exceedingly simple. It 
arises from this circumstance: I observed myself last year, while wan- 
dering for weeks, at least for a fortnight, among a field of ice composed 
of frozen detached pieces, extending over a surface of fifty square miles, 
that no cod and no caplin came underneath that ice; they would not 
pass through the cold current which was perpetually falling and form- 
ing beneath it. The fishermen prophesied where these fish were to be 
found, and I ascertained that they were found, as they intimated would 
be the case. The explanation of this is exceedingly simple. The 
caplin and cod come in, and meeting the ice, will not strike through 
the cold current which is falling the while from the melting ice, and 
is being carried along the coast; but instead of striking across to their 
customary haunts, they in such event proceed along the edge of the 
field until they reach the grounds at its extremity. They would not pass 
through this cold current, and having practical knowledge of this fact, 
the fishermen are enabled to go to the right spot where the fish are to 
be found. 
he Q. You were on the coast of Labrador last summer, I believe ?—A. 

es. 
, — How far did you go up it ?—A. I went up 350 miles beyond Belle 

sle. 

Q. Did you make there any discoveries as regards the existence of 
banks in the neighborhood of the coast of Labrador ?—A. I should not 
call them discoveries, for [ simply described what the fishermen had 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3417 


known for a long time before. Enormous banks are [ocated there, and 
I noted down their position and mapped them. 

. Q. Do these banks extend all along the coast of Labrador, or are 
they situated off that portion of the coast which you have visited ?— 
A. They do not extend all along the coast. There is very deep water 
indeed from Belle Isle to a place called Spotted Island, a distance up of 


. ninety miles, where there are no banks; then you go up to Hamilton 


Inlet, a distance of about sixty miles, where also there are no banks, 


but when you get to Aillik Head, some forty miles beyond Hamilton 


Inlet, then the banks commence and continue as far as Mugford, 170 
mniles up, and I was informed indefinitely along the coast. 

Q. As regards the floes of ice and icebergs which are brought down 
by the Arctic current, have you any information to impart as respects 
the diatoms, or animalcule, attached to them,-which form the food of 
eodfish ?—A. Yes; in this way: We always find the lowest forms of 
vegetable life in the Arctic regions associated with the ice in vast pro- 
fusion. They are described by those naturalists who have been in these 
northern waters as completely covering the sea for hundreds of thou- 
sands of square miles in the northern waters of Greenland seas and 
Bafiin’s Bay ; tens of thousands of square miles of these peculiar vege- 
table forms were described by the officers of the Valorous, who went to 
take provisions to the late Polar Expedition, under Captain Nares. If 
have with me various descriptions of these animalcule, and of the 
enormous extent to which they are developed ; I have also appended to 
this paper here a note, by Dr. Robert Brown, describing the chain of 


| connection which exists between these minute diatoms, found in the 


Arctic seas, and the food of all fish there up to the whale, and showing 


the most minute connection between them, and also how it is that in 


the northern seas many varieties of fish, particularly such as the gigan- 
tic basking shark, feed exclusively upon shrimps—a variety of shrimps 
which form the food of our mackerel—and are specially provided with 
suitable apparatus for it ; so it also is with the seal. 

Now, I have succeeded in getting a portion of the mouth-fringe of a 
shark about 35 feet long with a special apparatus whica, in a single 
moment as you can see, is wonderfully formed for the purpose of sift- 
ing out these shrimps. The shark passes through the shrimps with his 


| mouth open, and his mouth is furnished with this peculiar kind of ap- 


ee These teeth are designed to prevent its food from escaping. 
he shrimp feed on the animalcule which feed on the diatoms. It is 
also a circumstance worthy of mention, iu order to show the enormous 
range of the common squid, that in the northera waters the stomach of 
the nar-wal is found filled with the beaks of the common squid. 


By Mr. Trescot : 

Q. How many of these appliances for the taking of food are found in 
the mouth of the shark ?—A. A succession of them are laid along 
in it. 

Q. Are they placed transversely or parallel in the jaws ?—A. They 


move like gills. 


By Mr. Whiteway : 

Q. As regards the codfishery of Newfoundland, [ believe you have 
Stated it is entirely inshore fishery 7—A. As far as my experience goes 
it i$ exclusively an inshore fishery as now pursued by the Newfound- 
landers. Perhaps on the south coast here and there during the winter 
they may go beyond what is technically termed the three-mile limit. 


This is quite probable, but taking it altogether this fishery is pursued. 


/ 


3418 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


in small boats, and is essentially an inshore fishery. I was in a good _ 
many of these boats, and I went with the fishermen, especially in the | 


great Bay of Notre Dame, where the mackerel frequently appear in con- 
‘siderable abundance, and where many years ago they made their ap- 
pearance in such numbers that it is still a common saying among fisher- 
men there that they were then “cursed off the coast” because they filled 


the herring nets and were a great nuisance to them, as they could find’ 


no market for these fish, and so they used them for manure. 
By Sir Alexander Galt: | 


Q. At what distance from the shore do the French prosecute the cod 


fishery 7?—A. They fish inshore, sometimes to five miles out, but gener- 
ally close inshore. The water is deep there quite close inshore. They 
are fishing all along the shore. 

@. Are the seines which you have described dragged from the shore ? 
—A. Not necessarily; very frequently they inclose the fish and bale 
them out. 

Q. They do not draw them to the shore ?—A. No; in many instances 
they cannot draw these seines to land; the water is so deep and the 
‘coast so sheer. 

Q. I want to understand how these seines are managed ?—A. I only 
saw one handled once, and I would not like, under the circumstances, 
to give a general description of the way in which they are used; but 
they are managed in the ordinary way in which seines are managed at 
sea. They drag the seine together where the bottom of the seine 
will reach the bottom of the sea, for otherwise, of course, the fish in- 
‘closed would escape. 

Q. How do they get the fish to the surface ?—A. In a large seine, 
‘there is always what is called the bag, and they get the fish into this 
bag. These seines are not drawn together with strings like purse nets, 
but knowing little or nothing about them, I will not venture to offer a 
‘description of them. 

FRIDAY, October 26, 1877. 

The Conference met. 

The examination of Prof. HENRY YOULE HIND was resumed. 

By Mr. Whiteway : 

Question. Have you a general knowledge as regards the French fish- 
ery as carried on, on the coast of Newfoandland and on the Grand 
Bank 7—Answer. I have no personal knowledge in this respect except 
as to what I have seen between Cape St. John and Quirpon. I was only 
in one of the harbors there twice, but in the course of conversation with 
different fishermen, I accumulated as much information as I could; and 
I have informed myself as far as possible concerning the history of the 
French fisheries, particularly as derived from French works on the sub- 
ject and also from official statements relating to the last 40 years, con- 
tained in the records of the various Parliamentary works to be had in 
Newfoundland. 

Q. From your information and general knowledge as regards the 
French Bank fishery and the French coast fishery, what in your opinion 
would be the effect, if the French were prevented from getting bait in 
any way from the coast of Newfoundland ?—A. With reference to the 
French Bank fishery of course any information which I can give on the 
subject is necessarily that which I have derived from official documents, 
because I have no personal knowledge in relation to the French Bank 
fishery; but from the information which I have gathered, embraced in 
records that go back over perhaps a period of 40 years, the uniform tes- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3419 


timony seems to be that if they were cut off from the means of obtaining 
fresh herring and caplin for use on the Grand Banks, it would be impos- 
sible for them to continue that fishery to one-half the extent they now 
do. They have long since exhausted, or nearly exhausted, the caplin 
fishery upon the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, where they used to 
supply themselves, some 40 or 50 years ago, with this bait, and as far 


'as I can gather from conversation and also from the statistics I have 


obtained, the annual quantity of herring which they require varies from 
| 70,000 to 100,000 barrels; while the annual quantity of caplin that they 


_ need varies from 40,000 to 60,000 hogsheads, and so on. 


Q. Have you any knowledge as regards the value which the French 
put upon their fishery rights on the coast of Newfoundland ?—A. I 


' have only the knowledge which history affords in this relation, which is 


' that they have always been most tenacious of those rights, from the 


time when the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were conceded to 
them, together with certain supposed rights on the western coast and on 


the northeast coast of Newfoundland. They have not only been, but 
_ are now at the present time most tenacious of those rights; and it has 


been a source of constant difficulty between the British fishermen and 


_ the French fishermen, with reference to the supposed encroachments of 
_ British fishermen on the fishing grounds they claim. 


Q. Are you aware as regards the number of men and nets employed 
by the French in these fisheries 7—A. I have gathered here the statistics 
which are published by Admiral Cloué, who for many years was on 
that coast, and who is the author of the French work entitled Pilote de 


_ Terre-Neuve, which is the only great authority not only for the French, 


but when translated also for the British, for a very great deal of our 


_ information respecting the coast of Newfoundland. Now, these tables 
_ are taken from his official work, and if necessary I can produce the 


work itself, which I obtained for that purpose from the Library of Par- 


- liament at Ottawa. It comprises two volumes in French, and is entitled 


Pilote de Terre-Neuve par Le Contre-Admiral G. C. Cloué. These tables 
relate to the different fishing stations, and describe the character, as 


_ far as vessels and men are concerned, of the French fishing grounds, 


the Bank fishing-grounds, the Gulf fishing grounds, and the northeast 


! coast fishing grounds, and what they call the dory fishery. Tables Nos. 


1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 give the statistics of each kind of fishery, the number of 
men employed in them and the kind of vessels engaged in them. I have 
also the number of boats so engaged. 

Q. Those named as coast-fishing vessels are those which fish upon 
the coast between Cape Ray and Cape St. John, I believe ?—A. There 
appear to be two classes of vessels which fish between Cape Ray and 
Quirpon, forming the western coast, and part of the coast of the Straits 
ot Belle Isle; and another, and totally different class of vessels which 
fish from Quirpon to-Cape St. John. The vessels that fish between 
Quirpon and Cape St. John are very large, but the fishery is almost 
exclusively carried on in open boats, close inshore, simply because the 
water is profound and deep close inshore along the northeastern Atlan- 
tic coast, whereas upon the gulf coast of Newfoundland in many places 
it is shoal; and there is a class of fishermen there called the Desfileurs, 
who are supposed to follow the cod from the Islands of St. Pierre and 
Miquelon up to the extreme northern point of the Island of Newfound- 
land, where they join the French fishermen at the port of Quirpon. 

Q. The desfileurs fish sometimes within three miles of the shore and 
Sometimes outside of this limit ?—A. They fish more frequently, I be- 
lieve, outside; and then we have a class of men who fish in dories alto- 


> 


a 


3420 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


gether, and who fish altogether inshore. Now, I have here a statement _ 
showing the number of men who fish in dories close inshore on the 
western coast and the number of so-called desfileurs, those that are 
alleged to follow the cod. I need scarcely say that this term arises from 
a misinterpretation of the habits of the fish, They merely intercept the 
different schools of cod and caplin as they come in from the gulf to the 
coast to spawn, according to the gradual rise of the temperature with 
the seasons, as they progress farther to the north. 

(Q. And the large vessels that fish between Cape St. John and Quir-. 
pon anchor in the harbors and fish in dories close inshore ?—A. The 
dories fish close inshore, but the seiners may coast along for some con- — 
siderable distance. You are aware of the fact that the vessels are dis- 
mantled, so to speak, and laid up, for the large vessels have nothing to 
do with the cod-fishing during the season, on the northeastern Atlantic 
coast. This is altogether a boat-fishery ; they require, of course, larger 
boats than dories to manage large seines. £5 

Q. The vessels anchor in the harbors there during the whole of the ~ 
fishing season ?—A. Yes. aH 

Q. And the fishery is carried on in boats 7?—A. Yes; that is to say, 
on the northeastern Atlantic coast. . 

@. And the fish which are caught in boats are taken within the three- © 
mile limit, close inshore, and along the shore ?—A. As faras I saw, this — 
was the case along the coast between Cape St. John and Partridge 
Point; but, of course, there were certain portions of the coast which L 
did not see. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. Professor Hind, I find here a book, purporting to be issued by 
you, entitled * Fishery Commission, Halifax, 1877. The effect of the 
Fishery Clauses of the Treaty of Washington on the Fisheries and Fish- 
ermen of British North America, by Henry Youle Hind, M. A.; Hali- 
fax, 1877.” Is that your product 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You wrote it?—A. Yes. 

q. And had it printed 7—A. Yes. 

Q. It is marked “confidential”; will you kindly explain what that 
means in this connection ?—A. My instructions were to have the word 
‘‘confidential” printed upon it; and it was not permitted to go out of 
the hands of the printer until special instructions were received for that 
purpose. 

Q. Then this was not your own private undertaking under your own: 
responsibility 7—A. No. 

(. You could not control it ?—A. Certainly not. 

Q. You furnished it ?—A. Yes. 

Q. To others ?—A. Yes. 

@. Who could control it ?—A. Yes. 

Q. For whom it was written ?—A. I received instructions to place it, 
when it was written, in the hands of the printer, from the commissioner 
of fisheries of the Dominion of Canada, 

(. The commissioner of fisheries ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Who holds that office ?—A. Mr. Whitcher. 

Q. You received such instructions from him ?—A. Yes—in relation to 
the printing of it. 

Q. And you placed it in his hands ?—A. Yes. 
Q. By whom were you requested to prepare it ?—A. Originally by 
Mr. Whitcher. 

Q. You make a distinction; you say “originally”; was there any 


. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3421 
change subsequently 7—A. No; I say originally, because the history of 
this matter commenced some time back. Do you wish me to describe it ? 

Q. If you please ?7—A. Itis simply this: When I came from Newfound- 
land, in May last, I was requested to put together the various facts with 
which I was familiar in relation to fisheries, and especially in connection 
with ocean physics, and such like; so 1 commenced to do so immediately 
afterwards, and this was the result. 

Q. Were you requested to do so by any officer of the Dominion Gov- 
ernment ?—A. Yes; by Mr. Whitcher. 

Q. He asked you to put these facts together ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You did not confine yourself to Newfoundland ?—A. O, no. 

Q. This is a great book, comprising 150 very large pages, relating to 
the mackerel, herring, and other fisheries, with chapters on the effect of 
the Washington Treaty upon the United States, and the general condi- 


| tion of the United States fisheries, and the total extinction and disap- 


pearance of cod in certain places, &c.; it purports to be an argument 
regarding the effect of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington 
on the fisheries and fishermen of British North America ; were your in- 
structions to prepare such a book 7—A. The matter was left to myself. 

Q. To prepare what you like ?—A. Not what I liked; but to prepare 
a paper on the general subject of fisheries connected with the Washing- 
ton Treaty. No definite instructions were given me at all. 

Q. Does this title describe fairly the work which you undertook to 
do ?—A. I think it does, at least as far as a title can do so; but you 
might describe it in a different way. 

Q. At all events your name was put to it and you approved it?—A. 
Certainly. 

Q. Then of course you understood that you were to write upon the 
effect of the fishery clauses of the treaty upon the British fisheries and 
British fishermen ?—A. No; I did not understand anything of the kind ; 
that was left entirely to me; no instructions were given me at all with 
regard to what I should write; I was merely to describe what I knew 
with respect to the fisheries of British North America, and particularly 
with their relation to the Treaty of Washington. 

Q. You were to describe the effect of those clauses upon these fisher- 
ies?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the fishermen ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And that is what you undertook to do?—A. Yes. 

A. And that you put into the hands and left to the discretion of an 
officer of the Dominion Government ?—A. I beg your pardon. 

Q. When you had finished the manuscript you put it under the con- 
trol and discretion of an official of the Dominion Government ?—A. Cer- 
tainly not. 

Q. Perhaps I have misunderstood you ?—A. That was not the case. 
At the time when I received the instructions, in the first instance, of 
course, I was told to place it in the hands of the printer. 

Q. When it was completed ?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were not to print it of your own option 7—A. No. 

Q. You were to print it or not, according as you received instruc- 
tions ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then, having received instructions to print it, you did put it into 
the hands of the printer?—A. Yes; I placed my manuscript in the 
hands of the printer. 

_ Q. And you superintended the printing of it?—A. I corrected the 
proofs. 


3422 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4 


Q. When it was completed, did you take out any copyright ?—A, | 
No. a 
Q. When it was completed, what was done with it ?—A. The edition © 
remained at the printer’s office; some few copies were, however, taken 
out of his hands; IJ, for example, took six copies out, under instrue- 
» tions to send them up to the Waverly Hotel; and that is all I knew | 
about it. ; 
Q. You sent them to the Waverly Hotel ?—A. Yes. “a 

. You took ont six copies ?—A. Yes. 

Q. And the rest, you say, are in the printer’s hands 7—A. No; I think 
that nearly the whole of them are there, but some are in my possession, 

Q. Was “confidential” suggested by you, or directly by the officer of 
the government who had charge of it x Tt was directed to be placed 
there by the officer of the government. = 

Q. So that you then had no right to let any one see it without his” 
consent ?—A. I had no right to do so. os 

Q. You were asked by Mr. Thomson, I think, how long you had made- 
a specialty of sea-fish ?7—A. Pardon me, not ‘of sea-fish, but of ocean 
physics. ; 
Q. Then you have never made of sea-fish a specialty 7—A. Certainly | 
not. 4 

Q. But you have of ocean physics ?—A. Yes. | 

Q. That relates to the animal life of the ocean ?—A. No; but it re- 
lates to the ocean and its temperature, and, for instance, to winds and 
ice. . 
Q. And the formation of the bottom of the sea ?—A. O, that would 
come in, certainly. Every material thing that affects the sea is includ ed. 
under that head. . 

Q. You have not made a special subject of the fisheries?—A. No. _ 

Q. Then as you are not particularly acquainted with the fisheries, — 
perhaps your attention has been given for many years past to chemistry 
and geology and mining ?—A. Yes; by profession, I ama geologist. 

Q. We are familiar with your name in connection with the gold mines 
of Nova Scotia.—A. Yes. sd 

Q. I believe that when gold-mine stock was put on the market at_ 
Boston you presented a certificate touching it?—A. No; never. 

Q. Did you never give such a certificate 7—A. No. 

Q. You are confident of that?—A. Quite. : 

Q. You issued two or three books about this matter?—A. No; I did” 
not. 

Q. They appeared in your name?—A., I have nothing to do with that; 
they are documents belonging to the government. 

(. We have records of the different gold districts published as late 
as 1869, 1870, and 1872, by Henry Youle Hind, M. A.—A. If you will 
kindly turn over a page you will see that these are Official documents 
addressed to the government of Nova Scotia. 

Q. This is a record of the Sherbrooke gold district together with @ 
paper on the gneisses of Nova Scotia 7—A. Yes. 

Q. And a paper on the gold-mining district of Nova Scotia, read before 
ony Geological Society of London and the Society of Arts in London ?—A. 

es. 

Q. Were they first read there, and then incorporated into reports ?— 
A. They only form part of a report. They were first read before the 
Geological Society of London, and discussed, and also before the Society 
of Arts, and discussed there; and then they were introduced in a report. 

Q. These were material out of which you form a part of your report? 


Fi 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3423 


—A. I should rather say not; the report is given independently of this ; 
they are adjuncts to a report. 

Q. And not part of the report at all ?—A. Certainly not. 

Q. The report is given with that paper 7—A. Yes. 

Q. The paper was read as mentioned, and not the report 7—A. Yes ; 


the paper was read. 


Q. The last one is dated 1872; I merely put the question, in order to 
ascertain the exact field of inquiry to which you have given your atten- 
tion; then, in addition to mining, &c., your principal occupation during 
some years past has been the examination of the physies of the sea ,—A., 
That has been largely the case; but I would not call it my principal oc- 
cupation. My profession is that of a geologist. 

Q. And a mining engineer?—A. No. 

Q. You are a geologist ?—A. Yes; a geologist merely. 

Q. And even the geograpby of the sea—if we may use that expression, 
though it is a rather contradictory term—is not your primary and prin- 


- eipal occupation ?—A. No; it is not my principal occupation. 


Q. I will not trouble you with many questions about the habits of 
fish, as you do not profess to be an expert on that subject ; your belief 
about codfish is, that it is not migratory 7—A. Certainly. | 

Q. And where do you think it goes; does it disappear during the sea- 
son, or do you always find it in about the same waters ?—A. It is always 
in about the same waters; but I imagine that it has a certain very lim- 
ited migratory movement, following its food a distance perhaps of from 
15 to 20, or 50, or 100 miles. 

Q. Do you think that it disappears out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence ? 
—A. Certainly not; the cod is there all the winter through. 

Q. It does not go out at any particular time through the Straits of 
Belle Isle or between Newfoundland and Cape Breton ?—A. No; the 
cod can be caught in the Straits of Belle Isle up to Christmas. 

Q. And how soon afterwards ?—A. As early in the spring as the iee 
moves, and even under the ice. 

Q. The difficulty in catching it in winter is not caused by the absence 
of the fish but by the presence of the ice?—A. Yes; the practical diffi- 
culty then is to get at the fish. 

Q. The fish are then there 7—A. Yes. 

, Q. Then the cod do not move from place to place in the gulf in pur- 
suit of any particular food 7—A. Certainly not; outside schools may 
occasionally go in, but this is not generally the case. I believe that all 
the schools of cod are, comparatively speaking, local in their habits. 

Q. And the cod spawn in cold water?—A. Yes, and in the coldest 
water. 

Q. In the coldest water short of ice?—A. Yes; short of fresh-water 
ice—that is to say, a temperature of 32°. . 

Q. Up to what figure? You say that is the lowest.—A. That depends 


entirely upon the marine climate in which the cod are born, so to speak; 


you are aware that the habits of the fish on the coast of North America 
differ materially, in connection with the difference in marine climates, 
from the habits of the same species of fish found on the European coast, 
All along the coasts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and of Norway, 
the diminished effects of the Gulf Stream are experienced. 

Q. I would like to have you state if yon will undertake to do so, and 
if this comes within your knowledge, what is the other and highest 
degree at which cod will spawn; you say that they will spawn when the 
water is little short of 32 degrees, and is the other limit 34 degrees 7—A. 
I would put the spawning temperature between 32 and 40 degrees, 


= 


3424 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I think you have stated in your testimony that the thermometer — 
on the New England coast, the Grand Bank and George’s Bank, &c., 
is at 40 degrees at a certain period, owing to the action of the Arctic 
current ?—A. That is the case at the bottom but not at the surface. 

Q. Do you mean to say that?—A. I certainly say so; and I especially 
quoted Professor Verrill on the marine life of the George’s Bank, stat- — 
ing that the temperature there is 40 degrees or below if. | 

q. I will read a portion of your testimony to see whether I understood 
you; it is as follows: x 

The effect of every current in the ocean is to bring the cold stratum of water which 
lies at a depth of ten or fifteen or twenty fathoms near to the surface, and one reason ~ 
why on Orphen and Bradley Banks the water is invariably cold is, that the tempera- _ 
ture is thus affected by the currents which bring the cold water to the surface. That | 
is the reason why the water is always 14° or 16° colder on the Grand Banks than in ~ 
the surrounding deep sea, simply because the cold Arctic current is forced up and is | 
brought to the surface. Over the George’s shoals the marine life is that of the tem- — 
perature of about 40 degrees. So also is the spawning-grounds of the mackerel of 
Massachusetts Bay. 

Q. Then what do you mean by saying that. the temperature of life is — 
always about 40 degrees ?—A. That is the temperature indicated the 
marine life that is found on the rocks on the George’s shoals; for in-— 
stance, the species of shell-fish, the different varieties of shrimps and 
the different species of star-fish. . 

Q. Or any other fish ?—A. Well, those are not true fish, but different — 
marine animals. 

Q. You named some fish ?—A. The cod is found there. 

@. Then there is a temperature sufficient for the spawning of cod on ~ 
George’s Bank ?—A. Most certainly, in the month of February; but — 
the temperature rises materiallyin May. The temperature on George’s — 
Bank is sometimes that of the Gulf Stream, which in summer flows over 
it and drives at such times the cod away. _- ° 

@. How far must you go down in May to get a current of water or — 
zone of water of the temperature of 40 degrees ?—A. Where? 

Q. On George’s Bank ?—A. The water on the George’s shoals is only — 
eight fathoms deep in some parts. 

Q. Just take the lower part of the shoals, or the region just around ~ 
it ?—A. I should say that in February you would find a portion of the © 
water on the George’s shoals considerably lower than 40 degrees. I 
should imagine that the temperature on these shoals would then be 32 — 
degrees, or lower than that. The mean temperature on the Grand Banks 
in February is 31 degrees. 

Q. As to the spawning-grounds of mackerel in Massachusetts Bay, 
you say that is the same; you say as to these spawning-grounds of — 
mackerel, that the Arctic current there produces a cold temperature of © 
about 40 degrees; is that correctly reported ?—-A. Yes; but then it has 
to be understood that for this you take the proper months of the year. 
The temperature of the water varies with every month of the year. 

Q. To and fro?—A. Yes. 

Q. Steadily ?—A. It varies to and fro with great regularity. 

Q. During what months of the year is the temperature the lowest in 
Massachusetts Bay ?—A. February. In some parts of this bay salt- 
water ice forms. 

Q. Then we may assume that it is cold enough there for the spawning ~ 
of fish that so spawn ?—A. Certainly. 

Q. Will you state what you mean by speaking, as I understood, of 
the mackerel coming into the Bay of St. Lawrence, and striking first at 


- 4 


aap 


— 


RES EEE 


- 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3425 


the Magdalen Islands; do you find that to be the case?—A. I think 
you must be mistaken. 

Q. Which come in the first, mackerel or herring ?—A. The herring. 

Q. You say that the Grand Banks, the southern coast of Newfound- 
land, and that neighborhood, is the great home of the cod. Perhaps 
you will also add in this enumeration the Labrador coast, all the way 
up, as far as you are acquainted with it ?—A. No; I would not. 

Q. What is the great home of the cod 7—A. On the American coast 
it is the Grand Banks, and the southern shore and the northeastern 
shore of Newfoundland. 

Q. That is their great home today ?—A. I apprehend that that is 
their great home. 

Q. Their great home, of course, is where there are banks?—A. Yes; 
generally where there are banks, but it is not necessarily so. 

Q. I do not want theory but facts?—A. As to the southern coast of 
Newfoundland, this is not a matter of theory at all, for they are to be 
found there in 200 fathoms of water; they are constantly taken there; 
150,000 quintals are caught in that part in from 100 to 200 fathoms of 
water. 

Q. They are taken there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you mean to say that their home is not necessarily on the 
banks ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Ido not believe that the absolute necessities of the cod are known 
to science.—A. It is, perhaps, a misapplication of the word “ neces- 


| sarily,” for which I must apologize. What I meant was this, that the 


reason why the cod is found on the Grand Banks, and the reason why 
it is found at the depth of 200 fathoms, near to the Grand Banks, is 
because the Arctic current is exceedingly broad there, and on the 
southern coast of Newfoundland there is a deep passage for it; hence, 
it passes also between the Grand Bank and the coast of Newfoundland, 
and the waters are consequently cold enough for and consonant to the 
habits of the codfish. 

Q. Do you think that the cod is not found where there is no Arctic 
current ?—A. I think it is always to be found where there is an Arctic 


; current. 


Q. The depth at which the cod must swim in each locality at each pe- 
riod of the year would depend mainly on the depth of the Arctic cur- 
rent ?—A. I should not put it in that way. 

Q. I dare say that you can state it much more clearly 7—A. I would 
say that the depth at which they swim is entirely dependent on where 
their food is to be found. They are not bottom feeders, in the ordinary 
sense of the term according to the old popular meaning, but at certain 
seasons of the year they are bottom feeders, and at other seasons of the 
year they follow their food elsewhere. 

Q. Will they follow their food irrespective of the coldness of the tem- 
perature ?—A, I think not. 

Q. Taking their desire for food and their desire for cold baths—taking 
it altogether—how do you think it is generally true that they are to be 
found wherever there is an Arctic current flowing ?—A. I think there is 
no doubt that, within certain geographical limits, the cod is always 
found within the Arctic current; and I do not think you can name any 
month during which the cod is not thus found within certain geograph- 
ical limits. I do not say, for example, that on our coast of America, 
they are found north of 70 degrees, but in Europe they are found far 
north of 70 degrees. é 

Q. Taking the coast of America, where do you put these geographical 


215 F 


3426 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


limits ?—A. At Disco Island, for commercial purposes, but the Esqui- 
maux take cod far north of that. : 

Q. What is the southern limit?—A. For commercial purposes, I should 
say Cape Cod. 

Q. Not George’s Bank ?—A. That is not farther south than Cape 
Cod. 

Oo W hen you speak of cod being found off the coast of Newfound- . 
land, to how many fathoms do you refer ?—A. It is caught there in 200 
fathoms. . 

Q. What distance would that ordinarily be from the shore ?—A. That 


varies very much; some deep inlets there vary in depth from 150 to 200 
fathoms. Of course, I can produce a map or chart, if youlike, andshow | 


you those localities. | 

Q. Taking the western shore of Newfoundland—you know the limits, { 
of course; you bave written this book on the subject of the effect of the 
Washington Treaty on the British fisheries and fishermen, and you know, 
of course—what i is the American limit under the Treaty of 1818? Ae 3 
Yes; I do. 

Q. Within those limits, what would ordinarily be the distance of 150 7 
fathoms from the shore Pon. Well, I could not say ; but it is very close 
to the shore—2, 3, or 4 miles from it. 

Q. It is not ‘necessarily at a distance of 3 miles from the shore, of ; 
course ?7—A. Not necessarily ; ; certainly not; that distance has nothing — 
at all to do with it. 

Q. When you come inside of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the great 
places for cod wherever they are to be found are usually in considerable © 
depth of water ?—A. Not necessarily, but usually. For example, the 
first place, so far as is known, where the cod appears in the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence is Natashquan, a peninsula on the Labrador coast, not very © 
far from the eastern extremity of Anticosti. 

Q. Are they found on Banks there?—A. Yes; outside Natashquan; 
and there is a reason why they are found there. 

Q. Do you regard the mackerel fishery as a precarious and uncertain | 
kind of fishing ?—A. Yes. 

Q. The habits of fish cannot be understood; we will never know or 
be able to make this fishery anything like a certainty ; it is a lottery to” 
a great extent?—A. I think not. I think that the Gulf of St. Lawrence 
mackerel fishery can be made much more certain than it now is; and if 
you wish, I will describe how this can be done. 

Q. If you can do so, and reconcile it with your statement that it is a 
precarious and uncertain fishery, yes.—A. It is a precarious and uncertain 
fishery in this way: unfortunately, throughout the gulf, the mackerel 
fishery is chiefly carried on by means of open boats. | 

Q. You mean to say that this fishery is thus carried on by the in- | 
habitants of thiscouutry ?—A. Yes; and hence, inthe first place, they lose 
to a very great extent, the great benefits of the spring mackerel fishery 
in certain localities. For example, they lose the spring mackerel fishery 
on the Bradelle (or Bradley) Bank. They have not decked boats, which 
would enable them to take advantage of the spring mackerel fishery 
there. Secondly, they labor under the great disadvantage of not being 
able to follow the mackerel when they move under the influence of the 
wind from one side to the other side of the Bay of Chaleurs; and in the 
third place, they cannot follow the mackerel when, under the influence | 
of the wind, these fish pass from the north shore of the Gulf of St 
Lawrence, via Point Des Monts and Cape Chatte, to the south shore; 
fishing, as they do, in open boats, they cannot take advantage of these | 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3427 


opportunities. There are three points in this regard. Then, again, on 
the coast of Prince Edward Island, owing to the uncertain winds which 
set in there, the mackerel move from one point in the great bight to 
another point; and if they possessed sailing-boats or decked boats, . 
which would enable them to remain out one night or two or three nights, 
they would then be able to follow these fish to a much greater extent 
than they now do. These are four points in respect of which the use 
of decked boats or vessels of from 15 to 20 tons would enable them to 
add materially to their present profits. At the present time these fish- 
ermen make a mere living, but if they were to carry on this fishery in 
= way I have mentioned, it would become to them excedingly profit- 
able. — ‘ 

Q. You mean that this would be the case if they had large vessels ?— 
A. Yes; vessels of larger size, of from 18 to 20 tons, for example. 

Q. The Americans have very large fishing-vessels ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it a precarious and uncertain business to them 7—A. It is, in 
this way: The great difficulty with them is to reach the gulf in time to 
take advantage of the spring fishery. You very rarely find the Ameri- 
eans enter the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and reach Orphan or Bradell (or 
Bradley) Bank or the Bay of Chaleurs save for what is called the summer 
fishery. This fishery takes place after the fish have spawned; and in 
consequence of this fact they lose in the gulf the advantages of the 
spring fishery which they gain on their own shores. 

Q. Then there is a spring fishery on the American shore ?—A. Cer- 


tainly. 


Q. Which they gain?—A. Yes. 

Q. Is it still true, as you remark somewhere, that the mackerel are 
found in great numbers on the New England coast in the summer and 
autumn ?—A. I do not think that is the case there in summer; but I 
think that in autumn the mackerel come in there; I am not aware of 
their coming in there in large numbers in summer; I think that the 
temperature of the water there is too warm for them. 

Q. You say: 

When the mackerel has appeared on the coast of the United States and the southern 
part of New England, they are so poor that they cannot be sold for food; but after 


they have spawned, in May, they rapidly increase in fat, and are taken in great num- 
bers in the summer and fall? 


me. A. Yes. 


Q. That is what I read from your book?—A. Will you refer to the 
page ? 

Q. This is on page 79, sixty-sixth article?—A. You will observe that 
this is a quotation. 

Q. I do not see that—no quotation-marks are here ?—A. It refers to 
No. 6, and is a quotation from the Report of the United States Commis- 
sioner of Fish and Fisheries. 

Q. Indeed, the quotation ends on page 79, with the Ist, 2d, and 3d 
paragraph.—A. True, it is not strictly a quotation, but a reference to 
a@ quotation. as, 

Q. A reference ?—A. Yes; to a quotation from the Report of the United 
States Commissioner of Fisheries. 

Q. You stated that it was a quotation 7—A. It amounts to the same 
thing; it is a reference. ; ; 

Q. I cannot agree with you in this; to refer to a book is not to 


-quote?—A. You are guite right; I refer to the book as an authority. 


Q. For your own language ?—A. Strictly speaking, it is not a quota- 
tion. 


3428 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. I was misled by your using the word “ quotation”; I thought yon — 
meant a verbal quotation. —A. I did not mean that. 

Q. You refer to the United States Commission of Fisheries Report _ 
when you say: | 

After they spawn in May they rapidly increase in fat, and are taken in great num- 
bers in the summer aud fall. 

Did you mean to put that in, thinking that it was incorrectoruntrue?— 
A. Certainly not. If you refer to the paragraph you will seethatI say: _ 
‘Vide United States Fishery Report, page 64.” } 

Q. That is the place from which you cite as an authority ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And did you not suppose it to be true ?—A. O, I supposed it to 
be true to a certain extent; in ‘fact, 1 believed it to be true. I consider 
that the statements made in Professor Baird’s report are true, as far as 
his knowledge goes. | 

Q. Have you changed your mind at all as to the fact that they do 
‘‘rapidly increase in fat and are taken in great numbers in the summer | 
and fall?—A. I never formed an opinion touching the fishery on the | 
New England coast. I state here “on the southern part,” and I think | 
you will find that this limits the area amazingly. 

Q. You allude to the southern part of New England 7—A. Yes; and 
that limits the area amazingly. I believe that is a spot where the | 
Arctic current conies up. a | 

Q. What do you think of the autumn fishery on the New England || 
coast? You have spoken of it in several places in this book.—A. I~ 
think that the mackerel come in there again in the fall. 

Q. You think that they disappear during the summer ?—A, They 
disappear and go into colder zones of water. 

Q. They sink or go out.—A. They sink simply because the cold zones 
sink; that is to say, the cold zones retire farther and farther from the 
warm coastal waters, and the mackerel follow them, and as the fall 
approaches the fish come nearer and nearer the coast. 

Q. They make another incursion on the New England coast in the 
autumn ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Then perhaps you would say that on the southern coast of New 
England they increase rapidly in tat and are there caught in great quan- 
tities in the summer and autumn, and that on the restof the New England 
coast they are caught in the spring, and again as the weather becomes — 
colder in the autumn ?—A. I should think that very probable. 

Q. And you do not think that the mackerel appear off Cape Cod, 
as elsewhere described, very fat and in excellent condition in Octo- 
ber and November, coming down there from the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence ?—A. Certainly not. 

Q. You do not adopt what we call the fishermen’s theory in this re- 
spect, in which they still believe ?—A. No; in the paper which at your 
request I placed in your hands yesterday, I especially enter into a dis- 
cussion on that subject and point out how it is improbable that the 
mackerel pass through so many isothermal lines in ascending and de- 
scending order; this is phy sically improbable, and in that paper I so 
point itout. ~ 

Q. I suppose that you once held the opinion to which I have referred, 
and that you did until you examined into the subject, as did most men of 
science ?—A. I did so until I read a paper written by Mr. Whitcher; 
when I had read that very excellent paper, I was perfectly satisfied that, 
it was not the case. 

Q. And you think that this is the present scientific opinion 1—A. 


Yes. 
Af 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3429 


Q. Some tables appear on page 81 of your book, and you say: 


Captain Atwood enumerates in his “ Remarks on the Fisheries of the Coast of 
Massachusetts,” published in the Report of the United States Fishery Commissioners for 
1841-72, 14.1 the following years as noted for extreme variation in catch. 

1831—Great catch, 385,559 barrels inspected. 

1831-1839—Gradual falling off. 

1839-1844—F ell to 75,000 barrels in a year. 

1841—Only 50,992 barrels. 

1841-1861—Gradual increase. 

1861-1871—200,000 barrels. 

1871 (§)—234,000 barrels. 


Now, to your mind, does that table show a steady falling off and decrease 
if the mackerel fisheries of the United States ?—A. A steady falling 
off? 

Q. Yes; and decrease throughout all the period from 1831 to 1871.— 
A. No. It shows a series of fluctuations. ; 

Q. Then you do not consider that the fisheries of New England are in 
a state of rnin ?—A. To what fisheries do you allude in particular ? 

Q. I allude in the first place to the mackerel fishery ; do you consider 
that the mackerel fishery of New England is ruined 7—A. Certainly not. 

Q. In some respects it is rather increasing, is it not?—A. I think that 
it is liable to increase and decrease ; it is subject to great fluctuations. 

Q. Take halibut, haddock, and that kind of fish; is this fishery in a 
state of ruin, or anywhere near it ?—A. I think that the halibut fishery 
there is in a state of rapid deterioration. 

Q. You think that there are none caught on George’s Bank ?—A. I 
think that there are a great many caught at George’s Bank, but not so 
many, or nearly so many, as was formerly the case. 

Q. Do you not know that there has been a very great catch of them 
of late years, and that there have been found, not on George’s, but near 
George’s, at a depth of 200 fathoms of water, a very large quantity of 
halibut ?—A. I have no doubt that they will find them all round the 
Gulf of Maine at that depth—in what is described as St. George’s Gulf, 
just in the same way as I think they will find them throughout the Gulf 
of St. Lawrence, in deep water. 

Q. I suppose that the necessities of the great market of New York 
and elsewhere has caused more attention to be given to the pursuit of 
halibut than was formerly the case ?—A. That is a commercial question 


'— which I cannot answer. 


Q. Leaving out the reason, has there not, for some reason or other, 
been more attention paid to the pursuit and discovery of halibut, aud a 
real increase in the product? I do not mean in the number of balibut 
in the sea, but in the number of them taken to market 7—A. I cannot 
say; but I can draw your attention toa very remarkable statement with 
regard to halibut, of which, perhaps, you are aware, namely, the repre- 
sentations that have been made by American fishermen to the French 
consul in Boston, for permission to fish for halibut on the Newfoundland 
coast, at present in the supposed occupation of the French; this shows 
a strong desire to seek halibut in every direction. j 
- Q. How does that matter bear upon the question whether halibut is 
not to be found on the southern coast of New England, near the George’s 
Bank, or about there, in very great abundance, and that there has been 
an additional stimulus, for some reason or other, given to the halibut 
fishery ?—A. I did not understand that you put that question. 

Q. That is my question. Now you say that the Boston fishermen 


have applied to the French consul for such permission ?—A. Certain 


—. 


3 
+ 


2 a a - 


Boston fishermen have applied to him for that purpose. This was many _ 
years ago. 

Q. How many ?—A. It must now be eight or nine years ago. 

Q. For liberty to fish on what is called the French coast?—A. Yes, in 
Newfoundland; that fact is mentioned in the Report of the United States 
Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries. 

Q. Did it go no further?) Was the French minister addressed on the © 
subject ?—A. I am not aware of that having been the case; but as far _ 
as I could and can judge, the extreme jealousy of the French—the jeal- — 
ous manner in which they regard all their fisheries—made it a hopeless 
case. : “| 

Q. Has the French Government, through its diplomatic agent at 
Washington, or in France, or has the American Government, through — 
the Secretary of State or any one else, ever taken up that subject 7—A. — 
The subject was brought up through the instrumentality of the French — 
Government; it was also done through the instrumentality of their 
agent in the United States. , 

Q. Do you mean the consul at Boston?—A. No; but through the © 
agent of the French Government, who was sent to the United States — 
for the purpose of inquiring into their fisheries ; and his representation — 
was made to the French minister; but the applications had been made 


3430 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


to the French consul in Boston. + 
Q. Then the French minister was told that certain persons in Boston — 
had so applied to the French consul there ?—A. Yes. ay 


Q. And nothing more came of it?—A. Lam not aware of that having _ 
been the case. j 

Q. On page 91 of your book, under the head of certain conclusions © 
which you reach on this subject in connection with the Washington ~ 
Treaty, you say: 


The mackerel catch is a special industry, and requires sea-going vessels. 


That you are prepared to say?—A. Yes. 

Q. You continue: by 
The boat equipment so common throughout our British American waters is wholly 
unsuited to the pursuit of mackerel, which has been'so largely carried on by United — 
States fishermen. 

A. Yes. 

Q. That you still consider to be true ?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is, that the pursuit of mackerel should be carried on in large 
vessels such as the United States fishermen use 7—A. Pardon me. I 
did not state it at all in that way. I explained a short time ago how it 
was that larger vessels should be used by the inhabitants of the Bay of | 
Chaleurs, of Prince Edward Island, and elsewhere, in order to enable 
them to take advantage of the spring mackerel fishery ; and if this was 
done, these fishermen would become wealthy instead of remaining poor. 

Q. I did not like to call attention to the poverty or want of knowl- 
edge or of education of the people of the country.—A. VW ill you kindly 
point out where I have described these conditions ? 

Q. There are things which you have more right to say than L—A, 
But I did not say them, | think. 

Q. You say that— 

The boat equipment so common throughout our British waters is wholly unsuited to 
the pursuit of mackerel, which has been so largely carried on by United States fisher- 


men; and immense schools of mackerel are freqnently left unmolested in the gulf and 
on the coast of Newfoundland, in consequence of the fishermen being unprepared with 


suitable vessels and gear. 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3431 


Is that so?—A. Yes; this relates to the spring fishery, on Bradley 
_ Bank, for instance. 


Q. Is this statement true ?—A. It is; as I interpret it. 

Q. As you now interpret it?—A. Yes; and as I always have inter- 
preted it. It was written with that express view. 

Q. It does not contain any limitation. It is said that— 


Immense schools of mackerel are left unmolested in the gulf and on the coast of 
Newfoundland. 


A. Yes. 

Q. Are there immense schools there ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Which are beyond the reach of the boats?—A. Yes; especially 
during the spring. 

Q. And, therefore, they are left unmolested in the gulf in consequence 
of the fishermen being unprovided with suitable vessels and gear. You 
continue : 

It is, however, a reserve for the future, which, at no distant day, will be utilized. 


Q. Itis your hope and expectation that the people of the Dominion may 
take the fish in larger boats or vessels, which will enable them to put 
an end to this kind of disability and disadvantage under which they 
now labor? You also think that the fish telegraph system might be 
adopted and used as it is managed in Norway; that is, by telegraphing 
along the coast the presence of mackerel, I suppose ?—A. Yes; and of 
fish generally. 

Q. You think that eddies contain and hold together a great amount 
of fish food ?—A. Certainly; of the free-swimming kind of fish food. 

Q. And these eddies are formed by the action of currents and tides ?— 
A. They are formed by the motion of the tide wave being impeded by 
the shelving coast, while dragging along or moving over any feeding 
ground. 

Q. The tides meet one another?—A. Yes; but that is a different 
thing altogether. 

Q. Do those eddies contain fish food ?—A. Certainly. I imagine that 
every eddy will aggregate and draw into itself all the floating substances 
which it has the power to draw in. 

Q. Therefore the eddies as well as the Banks and shoal parts of the 
ulf would: be places where the fish would naturally go to find their 
ood ?—A. Free-swimming food—yes. 

Q. To what depth do the tides affect the movement of the water ?— 
A. That is a very difficult question to answer. It is supposed that they 
begin to affect, or rather that the bottom begins to affect the tide, which 
is the proper way of putting it, at a depth of about 500 feet; that is to 
Say, as a tidal wave approaches the coast it begins to be affected when 
the bottom has a depth of a little less than 100 fathoms, and 100 fath- 
oms is 600 feet; so you may put such depth at about 500 feet; but that 
effect would be unappreciable to ordinary observation. 

Q. At what depth is it appreciable to ordinary observation ?—A. [ could 
not say; I know, for instance, that in the Bay of Fundy, at adepth of 50 
fathoms, it is very appreciable, but that is an exceptional case. The geo- 
graphical features of the province of Nova Scotia and of the coast of 
Maine have a wonderful effect upon the tides and in determining the 
depth at which they mix up the waters. But in the open sea the effect 


begins to be felt at a depth of about 500 feet. Outside of that it is merely 


an up and down movement of the particles of water, moving at the rate of 
about 1,000 miles an hour, following a wave like motion. It is only ob- 
‘servable when it is multiplied by the tide breaking apon the coast, but 


~ 


pees 


3432 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ; ¥ 


it begins, as I said, at a depth of 500 feet. But in the middle of the — 
ocean it is unappreciable. Bi 

Q. You say it is an up and down movement ?—A. It is a vertical 
movement altogether in the open ocean. 

Q. That is, the advance movement is a very small proportion 7—A. The — 
motion is especially an undulatory movement at the rate of about 1,000 _ 
miles an hour. It is very similar to the undulation of sound. Itisa |. 
vertical movement of the particles, and this movement is propagated to — 
other particles. x 

Q. What do you mean when you speak of the particles moving at that 
rate?—A. No; that does not refer to the particles, but to the undula- | 
tion—the wave. The undulation advances at the rate of one thousand ~ 
mniles an hour. 

Q. I thought you meant the motion of the particles ?—A. No. . 

@. Then you say the mackerel are higher or lower, mainly according — 
to the temperature zones ?—A. Yes. Ba 

Q. These are affected by the winds?—A. Yes. They are greatly © 
affected by the winds. Ni 

Q. By other causes? For instance, by tbe swing of the currents?— — 
A. Yes; by the swing of the tide. “% 

Q. In the shallow coast the appearance of mackerel close in is rather 
accidental, is it not?—A. No. 

Q. What is it owing to?—A. The winds. - 

Q. They are driven in by the winds?—A. No, not atall. I have illus- © 
trated that point in the paper which I handed to you last night. I 
should like to refer to that. I especially illustrated that point with — 
regard to the movements of the mackerel in the Bay Chaleurs and the ~ 
effect of the winds on the various portions of the gulf. That deter- — 
mines the movements of the mackerel to an extraordinary extent. For 
instance, take the Bay Chaleurs. As a general thing the mackerel 
always go against the wind. An off-shore north wind in the Bay Cha- 
leurs will cause the mackerel to go from the south coast to the north, — 
and a south wind will cause the mackerel to move from the north and — 
take an exactly contrary direction. 

Q. You said something of this sort, that all the food for fish was brought © 
from the northern regions; did I understand yon correctly 7—A. No; 
not exactly in that form. The word which I thought I used, and which 
in fact I did use, I believe, was that the “source” of all food is in the — 
northern regions. I refer to the food of the cold-water fishes. . 
¥ Q. Then the current does not create the food; it only brings it ?—A. 

es. 

Q. And you think it is born in the northern regions?—A. It is born 
wherever there is ice. 

Q. Then does not another generation grow up in this neighborhood, 
or do you have a constant supply from the north? I want to see 
whether I understand one part of your testimony correctly. You say: 
‘‘Although our seas appear to be very abundant in life, yet, neverthe- 
less, they are almost deserts compared with the wonderful abundance 
of life in the northern seas, particularly on the Labrador and Greenland 
coasts during the summer months. The sea, at times, appears to be 
perfectly thick with life, and to such an extraordinary extent does life 
exist in the northern seas, that the thermometer is very materially in- 
fluenced during a single night by animal and vegetable life. In a few 
hours the animal and vegetable life disappears utterly, and the ther-— 
mometer sinks two, three, or four degrees, and the water becomes colder. 
On another day the zone of life rises again, but it is always being driven 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3433 


to and fro by means of the Arctic current, and it follows the course of 
the great stream of ice which produces the cold in Labrador and the 
cold generally througbout the western world.” That we are to under- 
stand to be so?—A. No; instead of the word “ deserted,” read “ deserts.” 
There is no sense in the word “deserted” in that place. You are com- 
paring an imaginary thing with the actual. 

Q. They are always deserts ?—A. Comparatively. 

Q. Compared with the northern abundance, &c.; is that true of cod 
as well as other fish ?—A. No; the reference is more particularly to 
animalculz and diatoms, which form the original source of food. 

(. You speak of food then, and not of fish 7—A. Of food. 

Q. “Appears to be perfectly thick.” Now, do you mean the ther- 
mometer in the water or in the air ?—A. In the water. 

Q. Do you think that the temperature becoming cold affects the fish, or 
that the fish disappearing affects the temperature of the sea? Do you 
really think the life isso great as to affect the general temperature of the 
sea?—A. Yes; no doubt of it. That, you observe, is on the authority 
of Dr. Brown. I mentioned at the time I was giving that evidence 
that I had the extract here. 

Q. It is not quoted by you 7—A. No. I mentioned it at the time. 

Q. Are they warm-blooded or cold-blooded animals ?—A. Cold blooded 
animals, and the vegetable diatoms. 

Q. Does it cause the thermometer to rise or fall 7—A. Torise. They 
approach the surface, and when they disappear the temperature of the 


- sea acquires its normal condition. 


Q. Can you account in any way for cold-blooded animals causing the 
thermometer which is sunk in the sea to rise ?—A. Certainly. In the 
first place will you allow me to ask you a question ? What do you mean 
by a cold-blooded animal ? 

Q. What did you mean when you answered my question ?—A. I 
didu’t speak of cold-blooded animals. There is no such thing as a cold- 
blooded animal. 

Q. There are such things as warnr-blooded animals 7—A. Yes. 

Q. You said these animals were cold-blooded ?—A. I said so merely 
because you said it. It is a popular expression. I will describe what 
is popularly meant by a cold-blooded animal, if you like. , 

Q. But you must have had something in your mind. It must have 
been a very fine distinction to answer my question as you did and then 
say such a thing does not exist 7—A. A cold-blooded animal is—— 

Q. I would rather have you state if you please what is the nature of 
this animal that enables it to raise the thermometer ?—A. I can tell youin 
two minutes if you will let me tell you what a cold-blooded animal is. 
The temperature of the blood of most fishes varies from two to four de- 
grees above that of the medium in which they live. But there is a vari- 


ety of animals whose temperature is much higher than that, and they 


are called warm-blooded animals. The whale, for instance, is warm- 
blooded. All those fish breathe in the very same way we lo, only they 
take in less oxygen and somewhat less fuel, so to speak. These minute 
creatures that I have described, or rather which Dr. Brown described, 
as raising the temperature of the sea, generate an amount of heat by 
the decomposition of the carbonic acid gas. They are chiefly diatoms—a 
vegetable form. 

Q. I am not a bit of a chemist, but pray tell me where does the car- 
bonie acid gas come from ?—A. From the sea water, All sea water 
contains carbonic acid. 


4 
P Siew < 
aaa 


3434 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. Now, the result of this is that they are warm-blooded ?—A. No. _ 


They are not. You are a warm-blooded animal. 

Q. Then you cannot answer without referring personally to me?—A. 
Well, [ am a warm-blooded animal. 

Q. That does not help me, because you do not appear in that capacity, 
but as a witness of certain facts. A man is a warm-blooded animal, 
and so is a seal ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Now, are these animals, or creatures, that cause this change in the 
thermometer—are they of the warm-blooded sort ?—A. Certainly not. 

Q. They are not cold-blooded ?—A. There is no such thing as a cold- 
blooded animal. 

Q. Then what can you predicate of them if they are not warm-blooded, 
and there is no such thing as a cold-blooded animal ?—A. Fish are crea- 
tures whose temperature is from 2° to 4° above that of the medium in 
which they live. Diatoms are vegetables. 

Q. They have blood ?—A. Fish and animaleul have. 

Q. You did not attribute the fact to the blood ?—A. The blood is the 
agent by which the heat is produced in animals. 

Q. Then it is the existence of the blood in them that causes the heat 
to be produced and given out?—A. It is the existence of the blood 
which is the means of producing the heat. 

@. Aud that they communicate to the surrounding water?—A. Yes. 

@. And that causes the temperature to do which, to rise or fall?—A. 
To rise. 


Q. Now, then, can you tell me hadn’t you that in mind when you © 


answered my question? I don’t mean in the least to call your statement 
in question, but hadn’t you all that in your mind when you answered 
my question that they were cold-blooded? You answered that they 
were cold-blooded.—A. I made use of it as a popular phrase. 

Q. Would that as a popular phrase apply to a warm-blooded animal ? 
—A. No, certainly not. 

Q. You really think that these animals raise the temperature to that 
degree ?—A. Yes, the mass of minute life raises the temperature by 2° 
or 3°, unquestionably so. 


By Mr. Foster: 


Q. Are they visible to the eye?—A. Yes. They were also discovered 
to a considerable extent by Sir Wyville Thomson in the subarctic re- 
gions. You will find a full deseripiion of them published. 


By Mr. Dana: 


Q. The place where I found the reference in your testimony does not 
refer to Dr. Brown.—A. Yes, I referred, if you recollect, to the state- 
ments made in this manuscript. 

Q. I mean in your testimony yesterday ?—A. I referred to this manu- 
script. . 

(Witness states at this stage that the remark occurring in his testi- 
mony of yesterday, in reference to mackerel coming into the bay on the 
20th of June, is correct. It appears that he had previously stated it 
was a mistake.) 

Q. The mackerel spawn in deep sea, do they not?—A. Yes, sir. We 
have, however, no evidence here in America; but in Europe they have 
been caught far out in the sea. 
_ Q. Have you any doubt that is true of the American coast ?—A. No; 
I think they will spawn anywhere where the water is cold enough. 

Q. You think they will spawn in the deep sea?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were asked by Mr. Thomson to compare the two species of 


| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3435 


testimony that he said had been before this tribunal—one class of testi- 
mony being that the large proportion, say two-thirds, of the mackerel 
were caught within three miles of the shores all through the guif; the 
other class of witnesses stating that two-thirds or three-fourths were 
caugbt outside and the remainder inside. You were asked which you 
would consider the true testimony, or, perhaps, the question would be 
put, which would be the most in accordance with your theory which 
you have stated here. You answered, as I understood, that the testi- 
mony of those who said two-thirds were caught inside would be more in 
accordance 7?—A. Yes, for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

Q. Including all parts of the gulf; is that taking the gulf asa whole?— 
Including the chief mackerel grounds, Prince Edward Island, Bay Cha- 
leurs, and the north and south shores of the estuary of the St. Law- 
rence. 

Q. Not including the Banks ?—A. No. 

Q. Then you didn’t mean your answer to apply to the whole gulf, 
Banks, eddy, aud everything 7—A. No. 

Q. I think it would have been misunderstood otherwise. The question 
where the greater part are caught depends somewhat, does it not, upon 
whether the people use boats or vessels, which depends upon conditions 


of convenience and economical considerations. There are various con- 


siderations which may induce people to fish, inside or outside. People 
that come in from a distance must come in large vessels, and would nat- 
urally fish outside, whereas people that live along the shores would 
catch with boats; so that, taking the question whether the fishing 
is dope in the bay as a whole, it depends, does it not, upon a variety 
of circumstances 7?— A. I understood the question to be more particu- 
larly with regard to the manner in which the mackerel are caught in- 
shore in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in contradistinction to the manner in 
which they are caught upon the American shore, and I think I stated 
that in the Gulf of St. Lawrence the tendency of scientific observation 
would be to show that the greatest portion of the mackerel are caught 
inshore, whereas on the American shore, owing to the temperature of 
the water, the greater portion would be caught outside. 

Q. Would be found, rather ?—A. Yes; would be found. 

Q. The question as to where they would be caught would depend upon 
a@ variety of circumstances such as I have referred to. Those you don’t 
include. You spoke of what was discharged from the mouths of rivers 
and the dams and factories, which prevented the passage up the rivers 
along the American coast of the fish from the sea, which you thought 
must have the effect of diminishing the number of the commercial fish 
which followed them. In this connection you spoke of what had been 
done here to remedy such evils; are you aware that in New England 
very great pains have been taken to secure the passage of the fish up be- 
yond the dam ?7—A. Yes. 

Q. And did you know that statutes had been passed, and decisions of 
the courts given, compelling even the oldest dams to allow a place for 


the passage of the fish 7—A. Yes. 


By Mr. Foster: 
Q. In speaking of codfish I wanted to know if you were aware that 
within the last two or three years, off Block Island, at the mouth of Long 
Island Sound, large quantities of cod have been taken in new places, 


_ where they were not known to be before, and where they have not been 


fished for before, through the spring and antumn mouths ?—A. Up to 


_ June they are caught, and then in the autumn. 


s 
. 
i 
<". 
, 


3436 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Q. How do you account for that?—A. I do not. Professor Verrill 
accounts for it by a spur of the Arctic current coming in from the Nan- 
tucket shoals and passing around Block Island. 

Q. There is a cold wave of water at that particular point ?—A. Yes. 
In the month of June they are driven out by the Gulf Stream. 

Q. But the mackerel are taken in substantially the same locality all 
through the season from early spring to late in the autumn, are they not? 
—A. I understand that all around the neighborhood of Block Island 


they are taken in early spring, and that is their great spawning ground. — 


Q. Undoubtedly they are taken in the early spring. Are they not in 
midsummer ?—A. I was not aware of it. I never heard of any being 
taken then. 


Q. Do you think it can be laid down as a rule that the mackerel off - 


the United States coast are caught nearer inshore iu the spring and fall 
than in the summer months ?—A. Certainly. 

Q. You are satisfied of that as a fact. I don’t mean that it would be 
in accordance with your theory, but are you satisfied, from the observa- 
tions of facts that you have made, that the actual facts will bear out that 
view 7—A. Quite irrespective of theory, I judge solely from the various 
descriptions that | have heard that the fish in the spring and fall are 
largely inshore. In the summer it is not so. That is expressly said by 
Professor Verrill, not in regard to mackerel particularly, but as to all 
fish, in his elaborate report for 1872 as well as in the American. Journal 
of Science for 1873. 

Q. Well, I have seen Professor Verrill’s report, but didn’t you under- 
staud that the American skippers have been getting very large hauls of 
mackerel in the sammer months as well as in the spring and autamn ?— 
A. You mean away out a good many miles; certainly. 

Q. And close in ?—A. I don’t know about close in; but I know they 
sail 30 or 40 miles out and get them in abundance. 

Q. There is no question about that. Don’t they also get them quite 
near inshore ?—A. I think they do in Massachusetts Bay and near Still- 
wanger Bank. 

Q. Would they not get them on the Banks wherever they are, pretty 
near shore or far out ?—A. Always on the Banks in the locality of the 
Arctic current. 

Q. Well, now, one or two more questions about the cod fishery I want 
to ask you. You spoke of the French fishing at St. Peter’s; is not that 
an uncertain fishery, lasting only a short time ?—A. There is a very 
remarkable circumstance connected with the French fishery. 

Q. What is it ?—A. It has been pointed out in a very elaborate man- 
ner by Admiral Cloué. It is this: that for the period of three or four or 
five years the French fishery on the Grand Banks is good, and then 
declines, but as soon as it begins to decline the French fishery on the 
northeast coast of Newfoundland begins to be good, and many of their 
vessels go there. That in turn will continue good for a period of three 
or ee years, and then declines. Meanwhile the Bank fishery is recu- 
perated. 

Q. To what do you attribute that, or what do you infer from it ?—A. 
I should be sorry to draw any special inference from a general state- 
ment like that. All the fisheries fluctuate. It depends very much upon 
the seasons of the year, and especially upon the temperature of the 
month of April. I have called especial attention to that in this paper. 

Q. Now, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a succession of Banks, some of 
which are laid down on charts and some of which are not big enough 
to get on the charts.—A. Well, I should not describe it in that way. 


' a ir 
el en ae cee ec a ps 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3437 


Q. Well, how many Banks do you know between the south coast of 
Anticosti, and from there down to Prince Edward Island ?—A. In the 
first place there is the sixty-fathom line of soundings, and upon that 
there are several Banks. 

Q. Here is a map attached to the British Case (handing map to wit- 
ness); can you tell me by whom it was made?—A. No. 

Q. Now, there are the Magdalen Islands and there are Bradley, 
Orphan, and Miscou Banks, and you know where Fisherman’s Bank is. 
It is not down here. Taking the Magdalens as a center, it appears by 
the map that there is excellent fishing all around that region. We 
have heard of the fisheries on Bradley, Orphan, and Miscou Banks, and 
you have stated that Bradley Bank particularly was a great spawning- 
ground for mackerel. Now, was I not pretty near right in saying that 
after you get down a little way beyond Anticosti the body of the gulf is 
a series of Banks 7?—A. It is nearly all flat. So it is shown on Admiral 
Bayfield’s chart. The soundings vary from 60 fathoms upward. 

Q. I must have got it out of your books, that statement that there 
was a number of banks so small that they did not get down on the 
maps ?—A. I have no doubt that statement is perfectly true, that there 
are a great many Banks that are not on the maps; but there are vast 
multitudes on the coast of Nova Scotia. It was in reference to that, I 
think, that I spoke. 

Q. Whenever you find these Banks you expect to find mackerel ?—A. 
We should think so. 

Q. Whether these Banks are situated, as some of them are, 25 or 30 
miles from the shore, or whether they are pretty near in ?—A. I should 
think that made no difference at all. 

Q. You don’t think there are particular spawning-grounds for mack- 
erel 7—A. It depends upon the temperature. 

Q. Wherever the fish happens to be when it is under the necessity 
“4 spawning, then it spawns just as an animal delivers its young ?—A. 

es. 

Q. Now, the mackerel do spawn away down south as far as Cape 
Hatteras on the American coast 7?—A. I am not aware of it. 

Q. How far south do you think is the most southern point where they 
spawn on the American coast ?—A. I don’t know ; I never heard of any 
south of Block Island. I can easily conceive that it is not impossible 
where the Arctic current surges up under the Gulf Stream that they 
should spawn, but I have never heard of any locality south of Block 
Island. 

Q. I was under the impression that we had some evidence of it a good 
way further south, but perhaps not. Now, you spoke of a spring fishery 
for mackerel in the gulf which is not made use of. I would like to know 
how early you think mackerel could be taken in the gulf that would be 
more than number three commercially ?—A. I couldnot say. 

Q. Well, that would not be until some twenty days after spawning ?— 
A. I think not. Probably they would be hardly fit to catch. There is 
a kind of food on which they feed immediately after spawning which 
fattens them up with wonderful rapidity. : 

Q. What is that ?—A. The launce. That is the reason why they dis- 
appear immediately after spawning on Bradley or on any of these Banks. 
Tuey disappear in pursuit of the launce. 

Q. How early do you think they disappear from these Banks !—A. I 


think it is not at all difficult to ascertain if you take a mean of the times 
of their appearance during 12 or 14 years. They didn’t appear this 


3438 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


year before the 1st of June. Some years it is considerably before that; - 


some years not until the 7th of June. 

Q. When is the spring fishery over, and when does the summer fish- 
ery commence ?—A. About a month afterwards. 

Q. You think they disappear early in June and reappear about the 
1st of July ?—A. They reappear about the Ist of July. 

Q. So that the United States fishermen who make their appearance 
on the Banks about the Ist of July, go there in time for the second ap- 
pearance of the mackerel ?—A. For the summer, yes. 


Q. But there is an abundance of earlier and poorer mackerel which 


anybody might get ?—A. A great abundance. 

Q. Do you know whether, at that time, they take the hook readily ?— 
A. I don’t know about that. 

Q. That may be one reason why they have not heretofore been pur- 
sued ?—A. They have caught them in seines. 


Q. I know, but there are no Americans here to catch them, and the ~ 


provincial fishermen don’t use seines?—A. I think there is a record of 
an American vessel catching them with seines. 


@. You regard the mackerel fishing of the provincial fishermen as — 


undeveloped ?—A. Yes. 


Q. The fish are there to be caught, and what the people need is ves- — 
sels and enterprise, skill, and industry to pursue them ?—A. Well, I 


would not go quite as far as that. 

Q. What do they need ?—A. In the first place, I think they need a 
little guidance and instruction. They need also co-operative combina- 
tion, and also capital. 

Q. Now, would not those pass under the terms “ capital and skill” of 
my question? However, if they know how to do it, and could get 
money to build vessels, you think they could catch large quantities of 
mackerel early in the season ?—A. If they could get money to build 
vessels. 

Q. Is there any present prospect of that industry developing 7—A. I 
think there is. 

Q. Has there been anything done in that direction ?—A. Iam not 
aware of it on the coast of Prince Edward Island; I am aware of it on 
the coast of Newfoundland; Iam personally aware of a good deal hav- 
ing been done on the coast of Newfoundland. 

Q. Not for mackerel ?—A. Not necessarily. 

Q. You refer to the bounties they have offered?—A. No; to the co- 
operative system being beneficial. 

Q. But is there in the provinces any tendency to engage at the pres- 
oo time in vessel-fishing for mackerel ?—A. I am not aware; I do not 

cnow. 

Q. There were vessels fishing a number of years ago here, but it died 
out ?—A. The mackerel fishery of Nova Scotia is enormous. 

(. Vessels ?—A. I can’t say so much for vessels. 

Q. It is vessel-fishing Iam asking about, because you have spoken 
of the necessity of pursuing it in sea-going boats. You are not aware 
that there was a fleet of vessels here that has disappeared ?—A. No. 

Q. Do you know the history of a company formed in Halifax for that 
purpose which has since disappeared ?—A. No; I never heard of it. 

Q. I notice here in your memorandum a report which is from the De- 
partment of Agriculture, by J. C. Tache, in which he undertakes to give 
the proportion of the catch from each province 7—A. Yes. 

Q. He gives the catch of cod, haddock, herring, and mackerel. Do 
you know whether the figures are according to your views? He puts 


. 4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3439 


down Quebec as taking seven per cent. of the mackerel, Nova Seotia 
80 per cent., New Brunswick 3 per cent., and Prince Edward Island 
ten per cent. Now, where off the coast of Nova Scotia would there be 
that quantity taken; 80 per cent. is the estimate on an average catch 
of 150,000 barrels a year. In 1875, it was 126,000; and in 1874, 164,000. 
I think a fair average would be 150,000 barrels. Now, 80 per cent. o1 
that is taken off Nova Scotia. Whereabouts is it taken 7—A. It is all 
around the coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. The mackerel fre- 
quently strike the coast of Nova Scotia for 100 miles in one night. 

Q. These blue marks on the chart are intended to show the general 
course of the mackerel in pursuit of food. They are not always partic- 
ular to stay out more than three miles or to come in within three miles? 
They vary ?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, 1 was very much surprised to find 80 per cent. given as the 
proportion taken in Nova Scotia, because from the evidence we should 
think far the greater proportion came from Prince Edward Island. 

Hon. Mr. KELLOGG. Is that the percentage for the provinces? 

Mr. Foster. Yes; it is an estimate of the grand total catch of each 
province, and it follows a total giving the total catch from 1869 to 1875 
inclusive. Jt seemed to me a most extraordinary thing, because the 
evidence of American vessels fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia is very 
little indeed. 

Q. Can it be. You think it is right ?—A. There is a simple explana- 
tion. They strike the headlands, aud are all taken close inshore. They 
are taken by boats. ; 

Q. There are no provincial vessels fishing for them, and this particu- 
lar coast is not resorted to very much for mackerel 7?—A. No, but enor- 
mous catches are made by the provincial fishermen in boats. 

Q. You understand that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is the place where 
the United States vessels go for fish 7—A. Chiefly. 

Q. I observe you spoke of Bay Chaleurs as if there were a good many 
mackerel there. Now, the evidence we have had of the amount of 
mackerel-fishing in the Bay Chaleurs is that it is quite small. Do you 
know about the quantity caught there ?—A. I have been around there 
myself in 1863 or 1864, I think two or three years. I have seen a very 
large number of vessels there. 

Q. There is no doubt that at that time there were a good many that 
went to Bay Chaleurs, but of late years do you understand there has 
been many—for the last four or five years ?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. You omitted one thing that would be necessary to develop the fish- 
ing industry of the province here, I think. What other things are there 
that occur to you as likely to promote the fishing interests of the fisher- 
men in the provinces ?—A. There are several, I think; that is rather 
too wide a field. ; 

Q. They ought to have a market, certainly ?—A. I think they ought 
to have a market, certainly. 

Mr. DANA. I wish to explain my ignorance of that book (Professor 
Hind’s book on the fishery clauses of the Washington Treaty.) You 
state that half a dozen copies were sent to the Waverly House, They 


were not sent to the American counsel ? 


WITNEss. No. / 

Mr. DoutRE That book is not filed here as part of your evidence. 
Therefore I do not see that this is a matter for investigation. 

Mr. Dana. Do you object to my putting the question !— A. If you ob- 
ject I will not put it. 


3440 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Mr. DouTRE proposes to ask witness at whose request he prepared - 


the book. 

Mr. DANA. If the subject is to be dropped, that is one thing, but I do 
not think you should ask me to drop it and take it up yourself. 

Mr. DoUTRE. Q, go on. 

Mr. DANA. Do you wish the subject dropped? 

Mr. DouTtRE. No, we have nothing to conceal. 


Mr. DANA. The unprinted one, the manuscript, I never saw until last 


night. 
Wreness. That is a continuation of the present one. 


Mr. WEATHERBE observes that if the counsel for the United States 


had the manuscript book they were better off thau the counsel for Her 
Britannic Majesty. He had not seen it at all. 

Hon. Mr. KELLOGG. What is to be the use of this book? I don’t ua- 
derstand. 

Mr. DouTRE. It was for our own use in examining the witness. 

Hon. Mr. KELLOGG. I only want to know whether it is to be used by 
the board or not. 

Mr. DoutTRE. No, not as part of the evidence. 

Mr. Dana. [ hope we have not been guilty of any mistake. The first 
part came here only yesterday, and Mr. Foster got it from the British 
Agent. ; 

Mr. DouTRE. Several copies were given to Professor Baird. 

Mr. DANA. Not until after he had given his evidence. 


By Mr. Trescot : 


Q. With regard to the theory of this report, a great portion of which we 
have read with a great deal of interest, as 1 understand, the purport is that 
the advance in the study of ocean physics has been such that cetrain laws 
have been discovered, the application of which, like other scientific laws, 
will develop a large fishing industry if properly applied 7—A. Certainly. 

Q. You think that promise of increase in the extension of the fisheries 
ought to be taken into account in estimating their value ?—A. Yes. 


Q. Has the discovery of these laws advanced far enough to be prac- 


tically applied within the next two or three years?—A. Certainly. They 
are already practically applied in Norway and by—— 

Q. Taking the habits of the fish into consideration, the orographic out- 
line of the coast, the operation of the Arctic current and the Gulf Stream, 
the variation of the zone temperature, together with one or two other 
things, the winds and tides; all those considerations govern the question 
where the mackerel will be found. Now, is your knowledge of that habit 
sufficiently certain to enable you to say, at any given moment, that the 
mackerel will be there at such and such a time, on such and such a line 
of coast 7—A. Certainly not. But there is now being instituted, under 
the auspices of the United States Government, a series of marine obser- 
vations, especially under the direction of the Coast Survey, and all of 
those will pass through the hands of Professor Baird. Those are for the 
purpose of taking the temperature, not only at the surface but at certain 
depths below. But nothing has been done yet. 

(. That being the case, and you having admitted the American fisher- 
men under the treaty of 1871, so as to make this practically one continu- 
ous line of fisheries dependent on each other, don’t you think a system 
that would end by putting the whole thing under one joint commission 
would be a great deal better than any award of any kind ?—A. Iam 
not capable of answering the question so far as the award is concerned, 
but so far as the development of the fisheries is concerned it would be 
au immense advantage, there is no doubt. 


, 4 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3441 


By Mr. Doutre: 


Q. I simply wish to ask you a question to bring out a full explanation 
in regard of this book.—A. | have given every explanation. 

Q. The government wanted to use your practical knowledge for its 
own guidance and requested you to prepare this information ?—A. I 
presume so, but this manuscript book which I have prepared was pre- 
pared especially for my own evidence. 

_Q. When were you requested by the government to devote yourself 
to this business ?7—A. Well, I was requested in the first week in May. 
I received a telegram at St. John’s, Newfoundland. 

Q. You were requested by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to go 
to Ottawa ?—A. Yes, and provided that the Newfoundland Government 
would agree that I should put off the expedition to the Labrador until 
next year I consented to go. I submitted the request to the Govern- 
ment of Newfoundland, made through the Minister of Marine and Fish- 
eries, and they agreed in the most cordial manner, and I at once went 
to Ottawa. 

Q. You were put in communication with Mr. Whiteher ?—A. Yes. 

_ Q. You were to devote all your time and give the result to the gov- 
ernment ?—A. Since that I have devoted the whole of my time to the 
preparation of this report on the subject generally; since that time to 
the present moment. 


By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : 


Q. There is one point in your evidence with regard to layers of waters 
and the temperature of the water, and I understand you to say that the 
colder layer would come to the surface. Why would the colder layer 
come to the top, although it is of greater density 7—A. In rushing over 
the Banks the cold water, which is at the bottom, forces the warm water 
up and it flows out on either side. 

Q. You don’t approve very much of the theory of the mackerel mi- 
grating. Probably you don’t believe init? You think they gointo the 
mud and hibernate ?—A. In the mud and sand. 

Q. Well, to what extent do you believe they do so? Is that the way 
the great part of the mackerel dispose of themselves in the winter ?— 
A. I think that is so, not only with the mackerel but with a number of 
other fish. 

Q. Well, does that account for the disappearance of the mackerel dur- 
ing the winter to any considerable extent 7—A. Yes. 

Q. They go to the bottom or into the sand?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well. to what extent do you think they do it?—A. [ think they all 
hibernate just the same as the sturgeon in fresh water; and on the 
United States coast, the tautog, the scup, and other fish hibernate. 

‘Q. How far do you think they go out?) What number of fathoms to 
get into the mud ?—A. It depends entirely on the ice. They always 
appear to select those spots where the salt-water ice shall not be drifted 
in, so that they will not be exposed to the cold current dropping down 
from the salt ice as it melts in the spring. 

* Q. Where does the American coast mackerel go? They don’t have 
the Arctic waters there very much ?—A. O, yes; the Arctic current Is 
felt in winter nearly as far as Cape Hatteras. 

_ Q. You spoke of the cod schooling. I had not understood that the 
‘cod schooled in the way that the mackerel schooled. How does the 


schooling show itself, in the same way as the mackerel {—A, Cod school 
‘like mackerel before spawning; they also appear to school at the begin- 


‘ning of each bait season. It is the schooling habit which enables them 
_to be seined. 
ies 216 F 


; Pa a 


3442 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


The following tables are the tables referred to in the evidence of Pro- _ 
fessor Hind : eae 
Ol: 


Statistics of the French fishery on the Grand Banks, and the northeast coast of Newfound-_ 
land during successive periods from 1826 to 1856. 


From 1826 to 1841....- one e eee eet e cere cee eee eee 374 ships, 10,445 fishermen sailors. Al 
From 1842 to 1847...... Soe ee pee oeraeae 389 ships, 11,378 fishermen sailors. 
Prom:1848)to11850'.s2s.c2 sess cece cee cae eee ees 346 ships, 11,011 fishermen sailors. — 
Rronivleol-to kesOsscc oe cee ci osce seiee eee Siaeeaieese 383 ships, 11,348 fishermen sailors. | 
“ Le Pilot de Terre Neuve,” Vol. I, p. 26. * | 
j No. II. ot 
Statistics of the French fishery on the Great Banks of Newfoundland and on the Northeast — 
Coast. ¢ 
| Number of {| Number of 
Years. | ships. men. * 
TON) 2 eae erect oc asses dees cece css casieeces omeacievacee ee =e es caver eceseal 256 11, 134 
MSG acc on scaeent as ose oee ase eee san os eeemaeaeceneosacs 255 10, 
1S Re te eC Oe apy sO On EO SCE IOI SCRE a ee 238 10, 465 
DOGS cna cena swunensmmascce cs sae sncam os aesee ease aces ars 239 9, 448 
NSGS. se ciidonsnciew an sciences cance ssa ones caeaieukornes tors | 180 7,173 
DG foe ee ee poe sae ae eee nae 185 7, O4L 
BOGGS Ie Sais cso cs ae En a gee Na Seas Se ere een ee ae 197 7, 071 
NBO a const esas aatoencr sa eadencccce css sscadcusstdenactoasicnsessusussesupwesee | 192 6, 50L 
(‘Le Pilote de Terre Neuve,” Vol. 1, page 26.) 7 ; 
. No. III. * 
Statistics of the French fisheries on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, from Cape Norman Z 
to Cape St. John. : 
nee over | = 
| a | g |[sac°a | aw 
ee s Siw? | 3 ae 
ec) eae e 
ee =e a; 
Years. | 3 o | ES Fe So = 
be ee ats eo be 
\2| 38 |eg "3! Jo 
[2 | 8 | S803] 2m 
|2| 2 |gore3| Sam 
mia A> Ae “a = 
wise A 
ARGO socels sess Soest Los cce Seats yaceass cee usisescacs Sash eewssseee ees 105 | 6,180 4; 130 
rf TE ee ne ee: ONE A ome me ys Se. 105 | 6,058 3 63 
1 a ee a oe ROD te Eerie a fea ee or rate par Ee oR hee 112 | 9,593 3 93 
DBG8 838 rene SN aca be ened Saeed ee 116 | 5, 493 3 93 
BOGE oo oy cues can cecesuciasncc sees sie Se dase seed eos eee 58 | 3,264 7| 274” 
ABBS ccicc servance sakes seu sedeet shes saa stoke seers oie eee oon eaten 55 | 3,118 6| 1555 
MOOD 65 cgi O i ncn os See ac aa Oe ies a Ee 57 | 2,758 17} 369 
flee PERSE eG aE MP RIES MRRP CRE CIS RS ERO EDA SARK TREC CT 35 | 2,068 17} 384) 
(‘‘Le Pilote de Terre Neuve,” Vol. 11, page 399.) pea gi 
No. IV. -. 
Statistics of the French bank-fishery on the Great Banks of Newfoundland. from 1860 to 1867. 
: erie Sts Nas Sa at rc ae A EE dee BET LAS fe 
iS Bank fishery, 
eas drsinent with drying} Bank fishery, arn 
St Pierea nad | 08 northeast; without dry- Total. 
ae Mi EN ae coast of New-| ing. 
Year & 4 s foundland. 
Ships. | Men. | Ships, | Men. | Ships. 
=| 
DOGO ES soca Saeco esc sae kaa hee 68 | 2,735 4 122 
ARG Didaoe sd o2e sbh cca sete tc ce nee ae 61 | 2,558 3 93 
WROD Fish 25st ss ac cee seot eee a ences: 48 | 1,591 3 93 
MUGS oon c lee cca ace sees sce cceoe 40; 1,480 3 90 
NOON Goes se Seen coders aera dete ae 38 | 1,252 7 274 
TBGS ooo sge ch Seas ee es 42] 1,515 6 151 
aD a eae ee ep id oe SITS £8 47 | 1,640 17 369 
VOGT esse ek Ace sare 51 | 1, 761 17 384 
(‘Le Filote de Terre Neuve,” Vo). 1, page 25.) 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3443 


No. V. 
Statistics of the French fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 


———$—$ $5 $$$ —_——___~_ —-- +-—- — . —_— —- _ — 


| 
| 


= ; 

s | 3. | 

> 7 B 

a. =¢ 

Years. a S¥ 

~ he 

: ale In ts 

s | =: 

=. |a A 
ESE psec meoeeanabte a apace arian i 38 | 1,080 | Phe Islands of St. Pierre and 
3 RR ae 7a I 34.) 1°354 Miquelon send tothe West Coast 
soc aa A Sea a I 36| 1519 about 15 schooners manned by 
«lS TE a 2 ast Nn a ae ae ; 3L| 1/399 | 12men. They dispatch also into 
IER AN TE Be ee a aOR A Nel 27! 1'209 the gulf abont 126 to 160 men to 
ee LEE EAE Nes ere an 92 | 1/043 | ™au from 60 to 80 dorys to fish 
1867 PRES Sree tert rss AS iar Lt ts as ete ee 20 : 822 about Cod Roy and Red Island, 
. (‘Le Pilote de Terre Neuve,”’ Vol. 1, page 246.) 
Affidavits read in rebuttal by Mr. Whiteway. 
Nox i. 

NEWFOUNDLAND. 


Saint John’s, to wit: 

Thomas Rumsey, aged thirty years, fisherman, residing at Saint 
John’s, aforesaid, maketh oath and saith: Deponent is well acquainted 
with the fisheries of Newfoundland, and is intimately acquainted with 
the herriug fishery. Deponent, last spring, saw three United States 
herring seines used by American fishermen in “ barring herrings” at 
Long Harbor in Fortune Bay, and knows that large quantities of her- 
rings were “ barred” by these seines and taken out afterwards by using 
their small seines, which these United States fishermen came down pre- 


pared with. 

- Deponent knows that United States fishermen are in the habit of 
‘using their own seines to inclose herrings on our coasts, and of employ- 
ing British fishermen to assist in hauling these seines. Deponent knows 
of one instance in which United States fishermen brought down a large 
herring seine completely fitted out with seine boat and all necessary 
gear, which they sold to a person named Fiander, at English Harbor, 
in Fortune Bay. Deponent further has heard and believes that another 
such seine was sold by United States fishermen to one Burke, at St. 
Jacques, in Fortune Bay, and in both cases the value of such seines was 
to be paid for by supplying these United States fishermen with herrings 
‘at nominal prices, hauled by these seines, the crews working the same 
being composed almost wholly of American fishermen. Depovent far- 
ther says that he knows of one instance that happened last spring, in 
which a cargo of fresh herrings was bauled by a United States crew 
and vessel iu Fortune Bay, aforesaid, and sold at St. Pierre as bait for 
‘French fishermen ; and that it bas been stated—and as deponent believes 
truly stated—other United States fishermen did the same thing. De- 
ponent bas been informed that United States fishermen intend provid- 
ing themselves with larger seines than those now used by them, (which 
are much larger than those by Newfoundland fishermen) and with 
these seines to engage largely in catching bait on Newfoundland s hores 


‘to supply French fishermen at St. Pierre. 
m THOMAS RUMSEY. 
y 


as 


“Se: 
*} 


3444 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Sworn before me at St. John’s, aforesaid, this 9th day of October, | 


A.D. AsiT: 
D. W. PROWSE, 
Stipendiary Magistrate, St. John’s, Newfoundland. 
NEWFOUNDLAND, ‘ 
Central District, St. John’s, to wit < 


John Rumsey, of Fortune Harbour, in Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, © 


maketh oath and saith: I have heard the foregoing deposition of my 


brother, Thomas Rumsey, read over. It is correct and true in every — 


particular. 


The name of one of the American captains is Jacobs. He formerly — 


lived in Green Bay, Newfoundland. I cannot remember the name of — 


the United States schooner that he commanded. 
I have been engaged four‘es3n years in the herring fishery in Fortune 
Bay. Ihave been fishing for thirty years in Newfoundland. 


his 
JOHN + RUMSEY. 


mark. 


Sworn before me at St. John’s, Newfoundland, this 9th day of Octo- 
ber, A. D. 1877. 
D. W. PROWSE, 
Slipendiary Magistrate, St. John’s, Newfoundland. 


Noo, 
Robert Inkpen, aged 33 years, of Burin, Newfoundland, fisherman, 


maketh oath and saith: Deponent has been connected with the fish-— 
eries of Newfoundland since he was fourteen years of age, and has pros- 
ecuted the same almost continuously since that time. Deponent is ac- — 


quainted with the bait-fishery in Newfoundland, and with the operations 
of United States vessels in British waters on our coasts. Deponent is 
well aware that no advantages result to British fishermen from these 
operations compared to the injuries to British interests, and is also well 
informed that the localities chiefly frequented by United States vessels 
are marked peculiarly as localities where the inhabitants are found in 


the most straitened circumstances. Deponent knows that United States- 


fishermen did use their own seines in Fortune Bay last spring in hauling 
bait, and that they did so in the early part of the spring in contraven- 
tion of a local law that prevented local fishermen hauling herrings before 
the 25th day of April, and loaded their vessels with about eight hundred 
barrels herrings, which they carried to St. Pierre, and there sold to 
French bankers. Captain Kirby was in charge of one of these United 
States vessels. Deponent says, further, that no money paid by Ameri- 
cans for bait is adequate to the injury they do to local fisheries and fish- 
ermen, and that all classes in this country agree in pronouncing their 
operations a great evil. 
ROBERT INKPEN. 


Sworn before me at St. John’s, Newfoundland, this 26th day of Octo- 
ber, A. D. 1877. 
D. W. PROWSE, 
Stipendiary Magistrate, St. John’s, Newfoundland. 


Joln Mitchell, aged 52 years, residing at Burin, Newfoundland, 
maketh oath and saith: 
I was present when Robert Inkpen made the above statement, which 


I know to be true in all particulars. 
JOHN MITCHELL. 


— 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 5445 
Sworn before me, at St. John’s, Newfoundland, this 26th day of Octo- 


ber, A. D. 1877. 
D. W. PROWSE, 
Stipendiary Magistrate, St. John’s, Newfoundland. 


I, Frederic B. T. Carter; a notary public, duly admitted and sworn, 
practicing at St. John’s, Newfoundland, do hereby testify that D. W. 
Prowse, who has subscribed his name to the jurat of the affidavit of 
Robert Inkpen and of John Mitchell, on the third page of this sheet of 
paper, is one of Her Majesty’s justices of the peace for the island of New- 
foundland ; that the signature “ D. W. Prowse, stipendiary magistrate, 
St. John’s, Newfoundland,” is the true handwriting of the said justice, 
and that full faith and credit ought to be given thereto in court and 
thereout. 

In testimony whereof I have affixed my notarial seal and subscribed 
my name this 24th day of October, A. D. 1877. 

(L. 8.) FREDERIC B. T. CARTER, 

Notary Public. 
No. 3. 


Stephen Power, aged 38 years, trader and fisherman, residing at 
Placentia, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : 


Iam practically acquainted with the fisheries of this country, having 
followed the same since I was 14 years of age. I have been engaged by 
American fishermen in procuring bait in Placentia Bay. I found the 
seine and the Americans supplied the crew, and for my services as 
pilot, hire of seine, and my own aid in working the seine with the 
American crew I was paid twenty-seven dollars in May Jast by Captain 
Hickman, of the American schooner I. S.Glover. I am well aware that _ 
American fishermen do haul bait for themselves, and I am well informed 
that they brought down four large seines this year to Fortune Bay, 
which were worked exclusively for their purposes and advantages. Such 
seines were very much larger than those used by our own people, and — 
are destructive to the herring fishery. These seines succeded in pro- 
curing large quantities of herrings earlier than the local seines, owing 
to their great length and depth; one of them I heard barreled upwards 
of (4,000) four thousand barrels of herring at one time. The operations 


of such large seines are highly injurious to the fisheries. 
STEPHEN POWER. 


Sworn before me, at St. John’s, Newfoundland, the 12th day of Octo- 


ber, A. D. 1877. 
W. J. S. DONNELLY, 
Justice of the Peace for the Island of Newfoundland. 


I, Frederic B. T. Carter, a notary public, duly admitted and sworn, 
practicing at John’s, Newfoundland, do hereby certify that W. J. 8. 
Donnelly, who has subscribed his name to the jarat of the affidavit of 

Stephen Power, on the second page of this sheet of paper, is one of Her 


_” Majesty’s justices of the peace for the island of Newfoundland; that the 


signature, “ W. J.S. Donnelly, justice of the peace for the island of New- 
foundland,” is the true handwriting of the said justice, and that fall 
faith and credit ought to be given thereto in court and thereout, 

In testimony whereof I have affixed my notarial seal and subscribed 


_my name, this 24th day of October, A. D. 1877. 
(L. 8.) F. B. T. CARTER, 


Notary Publie. 


= 


> 


. 

a 

\ ; 
¢ <= 


3446 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 
No. 4. 


By Stephen Fiander, of Coombs Cove. I reside at Coombs Cove, 
Fortune Bay. I was engaged catching or trying to catch herring for 


United States vessels at Long Harbor last winter. I was concerned in — 


the seine breught by Captain Deagle, of Edwin or Eben Parsons, in De- 
cember last. I was one of the crew who hauled herring with it. None 
of the crews of United States vessels were concerned or employed in the 


use of said seine; we had it from Captain Deagle on condition of our — 


selling to him all the herring which should be hauled with it. We 


hauled about 800 barrels, which we sold to him. We hauled them at a 


Table Beach. Samuel Fiander bought it from him afterwards. I saw 
the crew of United States vessel Wildfire engaged hauling herring at 


Table Beach about first of January last. The captain of said vessel — 


was with them; the seine and skiff they ased belonged to the vessel, and 
was managed entirely by crews of United States vessels with the excep- 
tion of one man, Bond, whom I saw with them. He, Bond, was to re- 
ceive one share only (i. é., one man’s Share). They inclosed that day 
about 300 barrels herring; they were not, however, all saved, as a gale 
of wind came on and the seine burst; I believe over half of the herring 
were thus lost. Captain Cunningham, master of said vessel, brought 
the purse-lines of the seine with him. The crews of United States vessels 


use those purse-lines when they haul herring; we British fishermen ~ 


never use them. I heard Captain Deagle, of United States schooner 
Edwin or Eben Parsons; Captain Charles Lee, of United States schooner 


schooner Wildfire, say, that they would have whatever herrings they 
wanted with their own crews and seines if their crews were quite willing 
to do so. 


his 
STEPHEN + FIANDER. 


: mark. 
Taken and sworn before me at Coombs Cove, the 16th day of October, 


1877. 
PHILIP HOBERT, J. P.. 
No. 5. 


By Philip Thornhill, of Anderson Cove. I reside at Anderson Cove, 
Long Harbor. I was at Anderson Cove when Captain Allen, of the 
Bonanza, United States vessel, arrived from head of Fortune Bay, in 
June, 1876, where, I understood from crew of said vessel and others, she 
had hauled a large quantity of herring. I believe the hauling of the 
herring was done entirely by the crew of said vessel ; there was one or 
two British fishermen on board, but I understood they had no share in 
the seine. The seine and skiff they used belonged to the vessel. I 
saw the crew of said vessel engaged hauling or trying to haul herring 
at Anderson Cove in June, 1876. The men employed at it were those 
of the vessel. I think they hauled some at Anderson Cove and salted 


them on board. I believe the seine and skiff was taken back by said — 


vessel, 
his 
PHILIP + THORNHILL. 
‘ mark. 


Taken and sworn before me at Harbor Breton the 16th October, 1877. 
PHILIP HOBERT, J. P. 


, of Gloucester; and Captain Cunningham, of United States © 


J Bee es 


ay 


yes 


See ee 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3447 


No. 6. 


By George Rose, of Jersey Harbor. I now reside at Jersey Harbor, 
Fortune Bay. In June, 1876, Captain Allen, of United States schooner 
Bonanza, arrived at Little Bay (Bay de Lean), where I then resided, 
and told me he wanted to haul about 1,400 barrels herring in Fortune 
Bay; that he had a herring seine and skiff on board of his vessel, and 
everything else necessary for hauling, and asked me to go with him as 
master of his seine, and that he would give me twenty cents per barrel 
for every barrel of herring that was hauled. I agreed, and my son John 
and I went on board at once. We left and sailed for Long Harbor, but 
did not haul any herring there; from thence we sailed for head of For- 
tune Bay, where we hauled about 400 barrels, which were salted on 
board the vessel. The seine, skiff, and crew belonged to the vessel, 
and, as I have said, I was simply engaged as master of the seine. 
The men employed hauling the herring all belonged to the said vessel. 
After the 400 barrels herring were salted on board we returned to Long 
Harbor in her. We (7. ¢., the crew of vessel and myself helping them) 
tried to haul herring there, but did not succeed. I left the vessel there 
and returned home. Captain Allen, the master of said vessel, paid me 
for my services the sum of eighty dollars ; my son received nothing. I 
heard afterwards that he got at Long Harbor after I left about 1,000 
barrels, but cannot tell if he hauled them all or if he hauled any. He 
told me he intended putting up the herring at Gloucester and reship- 
ping them for Sweden. 


his 
GEORGE + ROSE. 


mark. 


Taken and sworn before me at Jersey Harbor the 17th October, 1877. 
PHILIP HOBERT, J. P. 


ba Ti rare 
NEWFOUNDLAND, 
Saint John’s, to wit: 

Maurice Bonia, of Placentia, aged 58 years, fisherman, maketh oath 
and saith: I have been connected with the fisheries of Newfoundland 
for forty years. I know that United States vessels are accustomed to 
be baited at Fortune Bay with seines they bring themselves, and which 
they work with the aid of local fishermen. Last June I went pilot with 
Capt. Lauchlin McLeod, of the schooner P. L. Whitman, hailing from 
Gloucester, United States of America, from Placentia to Piper’s Hole, 
in Placentia Bay, to haul herrings for bait, for which purpose I used my 
own seine, and, with the aid of his crew and myself and my seine, he 
procured his bait. For my services as pilot and for hire of seine and 
assistance in working it, Captain McLeod paid me twelve dollars. _ 

I am fully sensible that the American fishermen in our waters, using 
the privileges conferred by the Washington Treaty, are greatly injur- 
ing our people by their operations, and that absolutely no benefits re- 


sult from their visits. 


his 
MAURICE + BONIA. 


mark. 
Sworn before me, at St. John’s aforesaid, this 19th day of October, A. 


D. 1877. 
H. RENOUF, 
| J. P. for Newfoundland. 


3448 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


I, Frederic B. T. Carter, a notary public duly admitted and sworn, 


practising at St. John’s, Newfoundland, do hereby certify that ‘ Henry © 


Renouf,” who has subscribed his name ‘“ H. Renouf, J. P., for Newfound- 
land,” to the jurat of the affidavit of Maurice Bonia, written on the first 
page of this sheet of paper, is the proper handwriting of said Henry Re- 
nouf, one of Her Majesty’s justices of the peace for Newfoundland, afore- 
said, and that full faith and credit should be given to his acts in said 
capacity as well in court as thereon. 

In testimony whereof I have affixed my hand and seal of office and 
subscribed my name, this 20th day of October, A. D. 1877. 

[L. s.| FRED. B. T. CARTER, 

Notary Public. 


No. 8. 


SOUTHERN District, NEWFOUNDLAND, 
Placentia, to wit: 


Humphry Sullivan, of Placentia aforesaid, fisherman, personally ap- 
peared before me, Thomas O’Reilly, esq., one of Her Majesty’s justices of 
the peace for the southern district of the island of Newfoundland, and 
maketh oath and saith that during the last half of the month of May 
last, deponent piloted from Placentia to Piper’s Hole the American 
schooners Webster Lauburn, Hodgson, master; the Governor Good- 
win, McGrath, master; and the Laura Nelson, Prout, master; that de- 
ponent hauled a sufficiency of herring for bait for the Webster Lanburn 
and Governor Goodwin, and that the master of the Laura Nelson, with 
deponent’s seine, hauled bait enough for himself on the Sunday. 


his 
HUMPHRY + SULJPIVAN. 


mark, 


Sworn to before me at Great Placentia, this 11th day of October, A. 


D18i7, 
T. O'REILLY, 
Commissioner of Affidavits at G. P. 


I, Frederic B. T. Carter, a notary public duly admitted and sworn, 
practising at St. John’s, Newfoundland, do hereby certify that Thomas 
O’Reilly, who has subscribed his name *“ T. O’Reilly, commissioner of 
affidavits,” to the jurat of the affidavit of Humphrey Sullivan, written 
on the first page of this sheet of paper, is the proper handwriting of 
said Thomas O'Reilly, one of Her Majesty’s justices of the peace, and a 
commissioner of affidavits in Newfoundland aforesaid, and that full 
faith and credit should be given to his acts in said capacity as well in 
court as thereout. 

In testimony whereof | have affixed my seal of office and subscribed 
my name, this 23d day of October, A. D., 1877. 

[L. 8.] F. B. T. CARTER, 

Notary Public. 


- these Presents, cause 


| 


i 


APPENDIX R. 
No. 1. 
Gloucester Mutual Fishing Insurance Company. 


This Policy of Insurance Witnesseth, That the Gloucester 
Mutual Fishing Insurance Company, in Gloucester, do by 
for whom it may concern, To be Insured, 
lost or not lost, Hundred Dollars, on seven- 
eighths of the Schoouer and —-—— Hundred 
Dollars on the Outfits or Catch, —-— Commencing this day and 
terminating the thirtieth day of November next, at 12 o’clock, noon ; 

And to be insured in the manner prescribed by the By-Laws, 


No. 


Yea" and to be subject to all the restraints and liabilities therein 
set forth. 
. ae And especially does this Company agree to insure only 


: seven-eighths of any one vessel, nur over eight thousand dol- 
lars on any one risk. 

The owner or owners, in all cases who are insured by this Company, 
shall always have one-eighth of said vessel, as valued by the 
Directors, on his or their own risk, and shall not be allowed 
to insure said one-eightl, or any portion thereof elsewhere. 

This Company does not insure against Barratry of the Mas- 
a" ter or mariners. 

No claim for loss on, or damage to, Fresh or Frozen Fish, Salt Her- 
ring in bulk, Dories, Trawl Gear, Nets, Seine, or Seine Boat, shall be 
allowed by this Company, unless in case of total loss of vessel. 

The insurers shall not be liable for any partial loss on Salt, 
Coal, Grain, Cured Fish, or Fruit, either preserved or otherwise, 
or other goods that are esteemed perishable in their own nature, when 
: carried on freight, or on the freight thereon, unless it amounts 
bE to 10 per cent. on the whole aggregate value of such articles, 
and happen by stranding. 

. No claims shall be had for Outfits or Catch, insured, unless 
the loss amounts to or exceeds 10 per cent. on the value of 
outfits or catch on board at the time of loss, and that loss shall be 
. caused by fire or the dangers of the sea. 
eeeeer Tt is also agreed that this Company shall not be liable in 
any case for loss on or damage to Outfits or Cargo carried on deck, nor 
for loss or damage -to the cargo of any vessel employed in freighting, 
unless the loss amounts to 20 per cent. of the value of said cargo, and 
then for the excess above 15 per cent. only. 

No vessel shall be insured by this Company except those 


~ Vessel Insured, 


” ea, 
Cargo Insured, 


Outfits Insured, 


meeest of Pre- sa 
| ie Bote, hailing from Gloucester. 


No vessel shall be insured by the Company while engaged 
in the business of carrying Sand or Stone. 

If there be any Lime on board, one hundred per cent. to be added to 
the premium for the passage. 
* Policy, #1.00. No claim for loss on the hull of a vessel shall be allowed by © 
» — this Company, unless said loss or damage shall amount to the 
following percentage on the whole value of said vessel as valued in the 


Bivranrsescsvaveceses 


kos 
3450 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


Policy, after deducting one-third for new, viz :— A vessel val- _ 

mer" ned at $7,500 and upwards, 55 per cent.; $7,000 to $7,500, 6 
per cent. ; $6,500 to $7,000, 64 per cent. ; $6,000 to $6,500, 7 per cent. ; 
25,500 to $6,-000, 73 per cent. ; $5,000 to $5,500, 8 per cent.; $4,500 to 
$5,000, 9 per cent. ; $4,000 to $4,500, 94 per cent. ; $3,500 to $4,000, 103 
per cent.; $3,000 to $3,500, 11 per cent. ; $2,500 to $3,000, 12 per cent.; 
$2,500 to $2,500, 14 per cent.; $1,500 to $2,000, 18 per cent.; $1,000 to © 
$1,500, 25 per cent.; all under $1,000, 30 per cent. 

Cables, Anchors, and Boats to be at the risk of the owners in all cases, — 
except a total loss of vessel. Sails, Rigging, Masts, and all other appur- 
tenances belonging to the vessel, to be at the risk of the owners, in all 
cases, except the loss on them at one time amounts to the following per- 
centage on the whole value of the vessel as valued in the Policy, viz :— | 
A vessel valued at $8,000-and upwards, 10 per cent.; $7,000 to $8,000, 
12 per cent.; $6,000 to 7,000, 14 per cent.; $5,000 to $6,000, 16 per 
cent.; $4,000 to $5,000, 18 per cent.; $3,000 to $4,000, 20 per cent.; 
$2,000 to $3,000, 24 per cent.; $1,500 to $2,000, 30 per cent.; all under 
$1,500, 35 per eent.; and under such adjustment one-third shall be de- 
ducted for new. 

Notice of any claim on the Company for damages shall be given to the 
Company within ten days of the arrival of the vessel, or no loss will be — 
allowed. No vessel receiving damage, whereby the Company becomes | 
liable, shall in any event be sold until directions to ‘hat effect shall have — 
been communicated to the Master or Agent from the Company. 

Cables and Anchors lost or sacrificed on the fishing grounds shall not 
be paid for by the Company, in any case, except total loss of vessel. 

Gilt work or carving shall not, when lost or damaged, be paid for ex- 
cept in cases of total loss of vessel. 

In adjusting partial losses the bowsprit of a vessel shall be considered 
a Spar. 

In cases of disaster to any Vessel insured, it shall be lawfnl for the © 
insurers to take possession of and repair the damage, and to demand of 
the owners their proportion of the expense thereof, and the acts of the 
insured or insurers in taking possession thereof to save, preserve or 
repair the same, shall not be deemed to be a waiver or acceptance or 
admission of an abandonment,—provided such Vessel shall be repaired 
and returned to the owners within four months from the date of the 
disaster. No claim for Total Loss shall be allowed by this Company, 
unless the cost of repairs (according to the Laws of the Company), at 
one time, after deducting one-third for new, amounts to fifty per cent. 
of the value of the Vessel as in the Policy. And the insurers are not in 
any case to be held to pay for any loss or damage by restraint, seizure 
or detention, by any legal or illegal power whatsoever, or for any dam- 
age, accident or loss, which may happen or occur to any Vessel while 
she may be under such restraint, detention or seizure. Nor will this— 
Company, under any circumstances, pay for copper, or any other metal- 
lic material, used as a covering for the bottom of vessels except in cases 
of total loss, in which case the copper shall belong to the insurers; and 
copper or other metallic material used as aforesaid, shall not be consid- 
ered at all in the adjustment of a partial loss. Vessels and Owners 
liable for deposit and premium notes. : 

The rates of premium for the current year, to commence on the date 
of application shall be as follows: From November 16th to November 
30th of next year, 9 per cent.; from December 10th to November 30th 
of next year, 8 per cent.; from January 1st to November 30th of the 
same year, 7 per cent.; from January 15th to November 30th of the 


4) 


‘ 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3451 


same year, 64 per cent.; from February lst to November 30th of the 


| same year, 6 per cent.; from March 1st to November 30th of the same 


ae 


year, 54 per cent.; from April lst to November 30th of the same year, 
5 per cent.; from May 15th to November 30th of the same year, 44 per 
cent.; from July lst to November 30th of the same year, 4 per cent. 
Two and one-half per cent. extra on the amount insured to be added to 
the premium of any vessel employed in the Greenland fisheries, or any 
business east of Flemish Cap or the forty-fifth degree of longitude; one 
per cent. for any vessel sailing on a voyage to Newfoundland, between 


the 16th of N ovember, 1876, and the 1st of March, 1877; one-half of one 
_per cent. to be added if employed in the Bay of Island fisheries on or 


after October 1st next, at 12 o’clock, noon; one-half of one per cent. to 
be added for any vessel engaged in the Georges fishery or any fisheries 
north and east of Georges which has not arrived in Gloucester harbor 
on or vefore October 15th, at 12 o’clock, noon; or for any vessel sailing 
on a voyage to Georges or any fishing grounds north or east of Georges, 
between October 15th and November 15th; and one-half of one per cent. 
extra premium on any vessel sailing on a voyage or employed in any 
business easterly from Cape Sable, between October 31st and November 
15th, at 12 o’clock, noon. And upon all risks not above provided for, 
the Directors shall have power to fix equitable rates for extra premiums 
to be charged and paid by the insured. 

No vessel shall sail from the harbor of Gloucester on or after the fif- 
teenth day of November next, at noon, at the risk of this Company. A 
vessel so sailing is not insured under this Policy. The Policy of any 
vessel not having arrived from the voyage she then is on, November 
30th, at 12 o’clock, noon, shall be continued until her arrival, a premium 
at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month, to be paid by the 
insured for such extension. 

Whenever the Directors shall require it, a survey shall be called upon 
any vessel receiving damages supposed suflicient to entitle them to re- 
pairs by the Company, and such repairs, when ordered by said survey, 
shall be made as such survey shall direct, and be done in a faithful and 
workman-like manner, one-third to be deducted for new in the adjust- 
ment of the loss. 

And so the President and Directors aforesaid are contented, and do 
hereby bind the property of the said Insurance Company, to be insured, 

executors, administrators, and assigns, for the true per- 
formance of the premises, confessing themselves paid the consideration 
due unto them for this insurance by the insured, at and after the rate 
of per cent. for the term, with any extra premium above provided 
for, and in case a further amount shall be required to pay losses, in 
excess of said premium and extras, all such sums as may be levied on 
the premiums earned to pay such excess of losses. 

In WITNESS WHEREOF, the President hath signed, and the Secretary 
hath countersigned, at Gloucester, this day of one thou- 


sand eight hundred and seventy- , 
GEORGE STEELE, President. 


Secretary. 


53452 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


No. 2. 


BY-LAWS of the Gloucester Mutual Fishing Insurance Company for the 
years 1876-7 7.—Adopted November, 1876.—George Steele, President ; 
N. D. Cunningham, Vice-President ; Cyrus Story, Seer etary and Treas-" 
urer. 


Article 1. This Company shall be governed by a ‘board of ten Direct- — zt 
ors, who shall be chosen from the Stockholders at the annual meeting — 
of the Company by a stock vote; one of whom shall be chosen by the 4 
Directors to act as President, and another to act as Vice. President. — . 
The duties of the President (and in his absence the Vice-President,) _ 
shall be to preside at all meetings of the Board, or of the Stockholders, — 
and to perform such other duties as may be required of them. 2 

The Directors shall have power in case there is a vacancy on the © 
Board caused either by non-aceceptance, resignation or death, to choose _ 
from among the Stockholders some person or persons to fill the vacancy; 
they shall also have the power to appoint a Secretary and Treasurer, 
and to fix upon salaries to be paid to the officers of the Company. q 

Article 2. The President and Directors shall superintend the concerns — 
of the Company, and have the management and direction of all things 
not otherwise herein provided for. They shall provide a suitable office 
for the transaction of business, and farnish it in such a manner as they — 
shall think proper; they shall cause to be kept by the Secretary a fair 
record of all their transactions, and shall report at the annual meeting _ 
in each year, a detailed account of the concerns of the Company, which — 
report, when accepted, shall be entered upon the records of the Com- 
pany. 

Article 3. The Secretary shall keep the books and accounts, shall col- ‘ 
lect and receive all monies, and pay the same over to the Treasurer as — 
soon as received ; shall fill up and record all policies and orders, notify . 
meetings, and perform such other duties of the office as the President — 
and Directors may require. 

Article 4. The Treasurer shall take charge of all the funds of the — 
Company, and deposit the same in some Bank in Gloucester, in the © 
name of the company. He shall pay out money by order of the Direct- 
ors, and all checks must be countersigned by the President. He shall 
give such bonds for the performance of his duties as the Directors may — ' 
require. i 

Article 5, The President, in addition to his duties of presiding at meet-_ ii 
ings, shall sign all policies, and shall order the payment of all monies by — 
the Treasurer, with the consent and approval of the Directors, (and — 
countersign all checks drawn for the payment of monies aforesaid ;) and « 
in his absence, the Vice-President shall perform such duties. 

Article 6. All applications for insurance shall be made in writing, and 
signed by the person or agent making such application, and shall specify 
the amount on the vessel and outfits (catch to be considered as outfits) 
or cargo separately, insurance to commence on the date of the applica-_ 
tion, and shall be binding on both parties until action is taken upon 
said application by the Directors at their next meeting, and until the 
expiration of the Policy, unless disapproved by the Directors at that 
meeting ; notice of such disapproval to be given to the applicant imme- 
diately after such action. 

Article 7. No vessel shall be insured by this Company except those 
hailing from Gloucester. 

Article 8. The stock of this Company shall be held in shares valued 


p | 


li 


| 
| 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3453 


at one thousand dollars each; and for each of such shares held by the 
stockholders a promissory note of two hundred dollars, payable on 
demand, with satisfactory security, shall be given to the Company, and 
upon each amount of said two hundred dollars, assessment may be 
levied by the Directors for such sums as may from time to time be re- 
quired for the use of the Company. ' 

Article 9. All stock notes shall be signed and endorsed before any 
application for insurance cau be received. 

Article 10. Auy responsible person who has property to the amount 
of five hundred dollars to be insured, may take one-half a share of the 
stock of the Company, and one share for each additional thousand dol- 
lars he may wish to have insured. 

Article 11. After the closing of the stock-book, no person shall retire 
from the Company, or cease to be a member thereof, but shall be firmly 
held until the business of the Company for the year shall be settled. 

Article 12. All matters relating to the government of the Company 
shall be decided by the Directors in all cases where they are uot 


_ instructed by the stockholders at a regularly notified meeting. 


Article 13. The Directors shall call meetings of the stockholders at 


| such times as they may think proper. And upon notice in writing signed 
_ by five or more stockholders, it shall be the duty of the Secretary to call 


a@ meeting as requested by them. 
Article 14. Special meetings of stockholders shall be notified either 


_ verbally or by leaving a written or printed notice at each stockholder’s 


place of business two days before the time of holding such meeting. 

Article 15. Each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for each 
share of stock held by him, and in case a person is the holder of a single 
half share, he shall be entitled to one vote. 

Article 16. No alteration shall be made in the laws for the government 
of this Company, except at a regularly notified meeting of the stock- 
holders, two-thirds of the number of stockholders to constitute a quo- 
rum for the transaction of business, and two-thirds present acting in 
the affirmative to decide. 

Article 17. No loss will be allowed by this Company on the hull of a 
yessel, unless said loss or damage shall amount to the following percent- 
age on the whole value of the vessel as valued in the policy, after de- 
ducting one-third for new, viz. :— 

A vessel valued at $7,500 and upwards, 54 per cent. 
é “from 7,000 to $7,500, 6 per cent. 
ae “ ~~ 6,500 to 7,000, 64 per cent. 


“ “ 6 6,000 to 6,500, 7 per cent. 
ras 6k 5,500 to 6,000, 74 per cent. 
‘ “« « 5.000 to 5,500, 8 per cent. 
& “ 6 ~=4,500 to 5,000, 9 per cent. 
& «% & 4,000 to 4,500, 94 per cent. 
‘6 “ 66 = 3,500 to 4,000, 104 per cent. 
‘“ « 6 3,000 to 3,500, 11 per cent. 
Yi “ 4 ~©=62.500 to 3,000, 12 per cent. 
ee 4 62,000 to 2,500, 14 per cent. 
‘“ se GG 1,500 to 2,000, 18 per cent. 
és “ 6 1,000 to 1,500, 25 per cent. 

All under 1,000 30) per cent. 


Cables, anchors and boat to be at the risk of the owners in all cases, 


except a total loss of vessel. 
Sails, rigging, masts, and all other appurtenances belonging to the 


vessel to be at the risk of the owners in all cases, except the loss on 


is 
3454 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


them at one time amounts to the following percentage on the whol 
value of the vessel as valued in the policy, viz. :— 


A vessel valued at $8,000, and upwards, 10 per cent. 
és “ from 7, 000 to $8,000, 12 per cent. 


“i ee 6. ,000 to 7 000, 14 per cent. 
“6 a 5, "000 to 6,000, 16 per cent. 
“ oes 4.000 to 5,000, 18 per cent. 
x ee 3,000 to 4,000, 20 per cent. 
eis 2,000 to 3,000, 24 per cent. 
66 eeraee 1,500 to 2,000, 30 per cent. 

All under 1,500 30 per cent. 


And under such adjustment one-third shall be deducted for new ; bal | 
the Directors are authorized and empowered, in case of partial loss, | 
under this article, to compromise with the assured when in their judg- 
ment it would be for the interest of the Company so to do. 

Article 18. Whenever the Directors shall require it, a survey shall be — 
called upon any vessel receiving damages supposed sufficient to entitle © 
them to repairs by the Company, and such repairs when ordered by said — 
survey, shall be made as they shall direct and be done in a faithfal and — 
workmanlike manner, and with good materials, one-third to be deducted — 
tor new in the adjustment of the loss; said repairs to be made under 
the direction of the Directors when practicable ; notice of such damage — 
to be given within ten days of the a of the vessel. or no loss will 
be allowed. 

Article 19. In case any vessel ae by this Company shall be 
stranded, and the master or owner shall think it for the interest of the — 
Company to get such vessel off and save the property, the Company do — 
hereby pledge themselves to pay their proportion of all reasonable 
charges which may arise in consequence of such condition, whether 
successful or not. 

Article 20. No claim for a total loss shall be allowed by this Com-— 
pany, unless the cost of repairs (according to the laws of the Company,) 
at one time, after deducting one-third for new, amounts to fifty per 
cent. of the value of the vessel as in the Policy. 

Article 21. This Company will insure the outfits or cargo of any 
Gloucester vessel. The amount to be insured on such outfits or cargo 
shall be designated in the Policy separately from the vessel, but no 
claim shall be allowed for the sum so insured, unless the loss amounts 
to or exceeds 10 per cent. of the value of said outfits or cargo on board 
at the time of loss, and that loss shall be caused by fire or by the danger 
of the seas. No claim for loss on, or damage to outfits or cargo carried 
on deck shall be allowed by the Company. In adjusting losses on out- 
fits, the whole catch shall be considered as outfits. 

Article 22. Each and every stockholder shall furnish vessels, outfits 
or cargo to be insured, the amount of insurance of which shall be at 
Jeast seven-eighths of the amount of stock subscribed by him; should he 
fail to comply with the above requirement, he shall be held to pay the 
lowest rate of premium on such sum as shall make the required amount. 

Article 23. ‘This Company will not be held for any loss or damage by 
restraint or seizure by any legal or illegal power whatsoever, or for ac- 
cident or damage which may happen to any vessel while she Bay be un- 
der such restraint or seizure. 

Article 24, Sixty days from the supposed or known loss of any vessel, 
the insured may make the same known to the Company, and furnish a 
written statement of the destination of the vessel, and such other facts 
as the Directors may deem of importance; and if on mature delibera- 


il 


= 


AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 3455 


‘ 


tion they should think that sufficient reason has been assigned to cause 
the belief that the vessel has been lost, they shall cause the Secretary 


' to lay an assessment upon all the stock notes sufficient to cover the loss 
_ on the vessel, and such assessment shall be levied and collected within 


| 


. ‘Feb. 


| thirty days, and the loss adjusted with the parties forthwith. 


Article 25. In case of disagreement regarding any loss which may 
take place in this Company, the parties agrieved shall make a written 
statement of the facts in the case, and the Directors shall also make a 


_ similar statement, and if the loss cannot be adjusted by the parties, a 


reference shall be chosen in the manner pointed out by the laws of the 
Commonwealth, and their decision shall be final. And losses shall be 
made up by some person not interested in the Company when the in- 


_ sured so request. 


Article 26. This Company will not insure over eight thousand dollars 
on avy one vessel and her outfits or cargo. 

Article 27. No vessel insured by this Company receiving damage 
whereby the Company becomes liable, shall in any event be sold until 
directions to that effect shall have been communicated to the master or 
agent from the Company. 


__ Article 28. No vessel shall be insured by this Company for more than 
| seven-eighths of her value as decided upon by the Directors, the owners 
| of the vessel in all cases risking one-eighth of said value. 


_ Article 29. Gilt work or carving shall not, when lost or damaged, be 


| paid for by the Company except in case of total loss of vessel. 


_ Article 30. Cables or anchors lost or sacrificed on the fishing grounds, 


_ shall not be paid for by the Company in any case, except total loss of 


vessel. 

_ Article 31. In adjusting partial losses, the bow-sprit of a vessel shall 
be considered a spar. 

_ Article 32. No vessel shall sail from the harbor of Gloucester npon 
any voyage whatever after the fifteenth day of November next, at noon, 
at the risk of this Company. Any vessel not having arrived from the 
voyage, she then is on November 15th, at 12 o’clock, noon, shall pay a 
‘premium at the rate of one and one-half per cent. per month until her 
arrival. The Policy on such vessel to be continued until her arrival as 
aforesaid. 
_ Article 33. This Company will not, under any circumstances, pay for 
copper or any other metallic material uxed as a covering for the bottom 
of vessels, except in case of total loss, in which case the copper or other 
material shall belong to the insurers, and copper or other metallic mate- 
rial used as aforesaid, shall not be considered at all in the adjustment 
of a partial loss. 

Article 34, The rates of premium for the current year shall be as 

follows: 

From Nov. 16 to Nov. 30 of next year, 9 per cent. 

] “ Dee. 10“ & 66 6 “ “c . ss 


: “ Jan. i 6c 66 oe OS same 6 f é 
* Fe “ce “6 15 73 66 se bb se “6 64 a“ 


“es 6s se 8k “ce os 6 s 


c 


a ** Mar. 5 
oe 6 Apr. 5 
be May Fee 6c, cee ee “ se 44 ‘“ 
“ July j ee 12 TL 6 ‘““ 4 
¥ But when either of said dates shall fall on Sunday, then the premium 
upon applications made on the next day preceding shall be computed 
under the rate of the date so occurring on said Sunday. One per cent. 
On amount insured to be added to the premium of any vessel employed 


et ee 
- 
- 
- 
= 
a 
= 
- 
¢ 
a 
“ 
rs 


= 


cm 


3446 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 


in the Newfoundland fisheries between the 15th of November and the_ 


1st of March next ensuing. 

Article 35. A return premium may be allowed whenever any policy 
issued by this company shall be canceled. 

Article 56. At the close of the business of the year, if it should appear 
that a profit had been made in the business of the company, the same 


shall be divided among the premiums earned by insurance on the stock » 


held by each stockholder; and should there be a loss in the business of 


the company, the same shall be assessed according to the above-named ~ 


conditions as regards profit. 


No. 3. 
FISHING SHIPPING PAPER. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.—DISTRICT OF GLOUCESTER. 


It IS AGREED between , ageut or owner of the Schooner 
, qualified by law for carrying on the BANK and other 


FISHERIES of the United States, and Master or Skipper 
of the said Schooner, and the Fishermen whose names are to this agree- 


ment subscribed, that the said will at own expense, 


equip the said Schooner with all the necessary tackle and 
apparel for a fishing voyage or voyages; the provision, salt, and craft 


shall be provided and paid for by. and that said ——- —— 


—— Master or Skipper, with the said Fishermen will pursue the Cod or 
other Fisheries, in the Schooner during the present fish- 


ing season, and will use their best endeavors to procure all the Fish, 
Oil, &c., they can, and for the success of the voyage or voyages they 
may go; and will be ready at all times, and will never leave the said 


Schooner without permission from the Owner or Master 


thereof. And it is agreed that the owner or Agent may dispose of and 
sell all the Fish, Oil, &c., that may be landed from the said Schooner 
whenever he may think proper, and after deducting from the Gross 
Stock all charges for Ice, Bait, Straw for Bait, and Nippers, the net 
proceeds to be divided, one- half to the Owner or Owners, the remaining 
half among the Fishermen, in proportion to the quantity or number of 
fish which they shall have respectively caught, each man paying his 
proportion of the expense of Packing Mackerel, Freight and expense 
in shipping Fish, &c., home, in accordance with the number or quantity 
caught, and each one of the Crew with the Skipper to pay an equal part 
of the following charges, viz: Cooking, Sawing, Wood, Water, Hoisting, 
Medicine, scraping masts, and tarring rigging. And the said owner 
doth hereby stipulate and agree with said fishermen, that he will render 
a just and true account of the delivery and sales of said Fish, Oil, &e. 

And it is further Agreed between the parties, that the Master or Skip- 
per, together with the fishermen, are entitled to all the benefits and privi- 
leges, and subject to all the duties and penalities, provided by a law of 
the United States, entitled “An Act concerning certain Fisheries of the 
United States, and for the Regulation and Government of Fishermen 
employ ed therein.” 


Time for which they 


| Quality. i xbauees to theirSign- 
Engage. 


Time of Entry. | Mon’ Names. | ing. 


pee ., Owner or Agent. 


ia 


| 
E 


a 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


. —————————’ 


A. 


pererieen, Lord: Correspondence with Mr. Everett in relation to the three- 
MPD UBC 5 oinivisin nis csi tsinninnrsesselsiem caisels sine cclsaisicin'e aaciosiss cecaleeee 
Adams, Joseph: Affidavit 256, United States case..............- 


-- 


2. Montgomery, Hugh John: New London, Prince Edward Island. .... 

3. White, John D.: Alberton, Prince Edward Island............ 2.2... 

_ 4, Arsineaux, Sylvan F.: Tignish, Prince Edward Island.............. 
5. Larkin, Alex. F.: Nail Pond, Prince Edward Island................ 
6. Conroy, James: Kildare, Prince Edward Island.........-.......... 
7. White, James F.: Alberton, Prince Edward Island. .........-...... 
8. Gallant, Meddie: Big Mimnigash, Prince Edward Island...-......-. 
9. Skerry, James: Cascumpec, Prince Edward Island......... mine sattnea 
10. Champion, John: Cascumpec, Prince Edward Island........-...... 
11. Davidson, Sebastian: Tignish, Prince Edward Island............... 
12. Champion, William: Cascumpec, Prince Edward Island............ 
13. McDonald, James: East Point, Prince Edward Island............... 
14. Davidson, James H.: Tignish, Prince Edward Island........-...--. 
15. Campbell, Joseph : Souris, Prince Edward Island...............--.. 
16. Chiverie, Alex.: Souris, Prince Edward Island..................... 
17. Morrisay, James J.: Tignish, Prince Edward Island.............--. 
18, Hackett, Edward: Tignish, Prince Edward Island................ eis 
19. O’Connor, Maurice: Kildare Cape, Prince Edward Island. .......-.. 
20. Larkin, Alexander: Alberton, Prince Edward Island. ...........-.. 
21. Perry, Gilbert: Frog Pond, Prince Edward Island................-. 
22. Gaudet, Agno J.: Nail Pond, Prince Edward Island................ 
23. Larkin, William S.: Nail Pond, Prince Edward Island.............. 
24. Foley, Michael: Alberton, Prince Edward Island. ......-........... 
25. Paquet, Marshal: Souris, Prince Edward Island................--.. 
26. Deagle, Peter: Rollo Bay, Prince Edward Island. ...............-.. 
27. Prowse, Samuel: Murray Harbor, Prince Edward Island............ 
28. McPhee, Daniel: Big Pond, Prince Edward Island............-...-.- 
29. McFadyen, Malcolm: Murray Harbor, Prince Edward Island........ 
30. Dunn, Charles W.: Murray Harbor, Prince Edward Island.......... 
31. Howlett, James: Georgetown, Prince Edward Island. ..........---- 
32. Graham, John: Cavendish, Prince Edward Island......-....-..---- 
33. McDonald, John R.: St. Margaret’s, Prince Edward Island...-....-. 
34. McKenzie, Colin: French River, Prince Edward Island.......-...--- 
35. Gilman, Alphonso: Malpeque, Priuce Edward Island........-...---. 
36. Marshall, E.: Anticosti, Quebec County...... .-.- .202---2 sone eeeees 
37. Nickerson, James A.: Margaret’s Bay, Nova Scotia....-....---.-.-- 
38. Ingraham, John L.: North Sydney, Cape Breton.........--...----- 


_ 39. McPhee, John J.: Big Pond, Prince Edward Island. ........---...-- 


40. McDonald, James: Chepstow, Prince Edward Island ...-...-..-..--- 
41. Nowlan, James: Souris, Prince Edward Island.......-.-.-----.---- 
42. McNeill, John G.: North Rustico, Prince Edward Island..........-. 
43. McKenzie, George: French River, Prince Edward Island....-...----- 
44. Paint, Peter, sr. : Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia.........----.----- 
45. Lawrence, George C.: Port Hastings, Nova Scotia........----.----- 
46. Hadley, James B.: Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. ..-..---------+-++-- 
47. Crispo, Michael: Harbor au Bouche, Nova Scotia. .....-.--.----.--- 
48, Munn, Robert Stewart: Harbor Grace, Newfoundland............-. 


217 F 


Page. 


145-149 
3322 


1461 


1462, 1463 


3458 ° ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Affidavits in support of British case, Appendix G—Continued. 
49. Hayward, James S.: St. John’s, Newfoundland. ..............-..... 
50. Hayward, James S.: St. John’s, Newfoundland...........-.......-. 
51. Rogerson, James J.: St. John’s, Newfoundland..........-.--...---- 
59. Deneff, Joseph P.: Gloucester, Maas... 25... sce week d a Foee en was so sn 
53. Molloy; William H.: Gloucester, Mass; ---.2.- 22s ccne.< ste escela suis 
54. Rose, George: Little Bay, Newfoundland ..................-...---. 
55. Evans, John: English Harbor, Newfoundland...-......-...---...-.. 
56: Rose; John: Belloram, Newfoundland s22c2...2.osccs ses ooescele= ss: 
57. Hubert, Philip: Harbor Breton, Newfoundland ........-.-....--...- 
58. Snellgrove, George T. R.: St. Jacques, Newfoundland............... 
59. Giovanninni, Henry: Rencontre, Newfoundland .....-....-......... 
60. Snook, James P.: Fortune, Newfoundland ........-... .----.-----..- 
61. Bennett, William George: Fortune, Newfoundland ........----....- 
62. Hickman, Samuel G.: Grand Bank, Newfoundland .........-......- 
63. Benning, Henry :; Lamalin, Newfoundland... << .-2-00..-.,.csses sco 
64. Reeves, James: St. Lawrence, Newfoundland ...........-........-. 
65. Vavasseur, Hugh: St. Lawrence, Newfoundland ................--.- 
66. Winter; Thomas: Burin; Newfoundland = 2.5... >< 2s sssss0ceeeese es 
67: Pine, Philip: Burin ‘Bay, Newfoundland: 2.2... sees ose see oe 
68: Collins;, William, Burin, Newfoundland ~-...--.-2. 2822. oc 0s 55:.t5-s 
69; .Pine,' Owen’: Burin: Bay; Newfoundland: <2. 2222 s--. <s24<s sss cases 
70: Panl, Richard::; Burin: Bay, Newltoundland) ...5..5 05 2222s caoccccese 
71. Berteau, ‘Francis: Burin, Newfoundland .::..2 s-26s-c223c-25s- esse 
72. McGrath, Richard: Oderin, Newfoundland .......-..-...-...-.---.- 
73: Pennell, Henry: ‘Trepany,. Newfoundland *...--. ...0.. S2-.<6.s-c5 see 
74, Leary, Patrick: Renews, Newfoundland .......-...--...-....---..- 
75. Jackman, Michael: Renews, Newfoundland ....................+--- 
76. White, John: Ferryland, Newfoundland ..............-.-.-..-0--- = 
77. Morry, Robert: Caplin Bay, Newfoundland ......-.-..........--.-- 
78. Winser, Peter: Aquaforte, Newfoundland ...-............---------e0 
79, Cashin, Richard: Cape Broyle, Newfoundland ........-.......---.-- 
80. Roberts, Thomas C.: Cape Canso, Newfoundland ...........-.-.... : 
81. Richard, James S.: Getson’s Cove, Nova Scotia............---..-..- 
82. Groser, Jacob: Lower La Have, Nova Scotia ............---.------- 
83. Jost, Nathaniel: Lunenburg Town, Nova Scotia ........--.....-..-- 
84. Smith, Charles: Lunenburg Town, Nova Scotia ......-.- seanee ae ee 
85. Wentzler, Benjamin: Lower La Have, Nova Scotia................- 
86. Conrad, George: South Village, Nova Scotia ........-.....---.---0- 
87. Cook, Geoffrey: Rose Bay, Nova Scotia ...-. adawactecutionecocwuaccs 
88. Getson, Daniel: Getson’s Cove, Nova Scotia...-....-.. Seieclsm anes ss 
89.. Risser: Dan-: Rose: Bay; Nova Scotia... 222... -- cece. cecwcelpeceleccaces 
90. Spearwater, James W.: New Dublin, Nova Scotia -...........--..-- 
91. Zwicker, William N.: Lunenburg Town, Nova Scotia.........----.- 
92, Lohnes, Isaac : Middle La Have, Nova Scotia ......-... ..---. cece 
93. Fortune, Lawrence: Toad’s Cove, Newfoundland..............---.- 
94. Carew, Thomas: Shore’s Cove, Newfoundland... .....-.....--. ---. 
95. Barnes, Charles James: St. John’s, Newfoundland........... sioeaes 
96. Grouchy, Philip: Pouch Cove, Newfoundland ............---.------ 
97. Tulk, William: Portugal Cove, Newfoundland ............-...----- 
92. Picot, James: Portugal Cove, Newfoundland........-.. aideccesieu se 
99. Tucker, Daniel: Broad Cove, Newfoundland .........-...----- -2-e- 
100. Lewis, Philip: Holyrood, Newfoundland..............- pine womiece cl 
101. O’Brien, Edward: Cats Cove, Newfoundland........--..-----..- sans 
102. Wade, Edward: Cats Cove, Newfoundland............ .eeses-seeee- 
103. Butler, George: Northern Gut, Newfoundland .........----..--.---- 
104, Parsons, Stephen: Bay Roberts, Newfoundland........--..-.---..--- 
105. Barrett, John: Spaniard’s Bay, Newfoundland...-.. aeccnen oneteas aes 
106. Hopkins, Alfred: Heart’s Content, Newfoundland ......-.-- atest 
107. Newhook, Thomas L.: New Harbor, Newfoundland.......-..-...+.- 
108. Morse, Edward: Dildo, Newfoundland ......... SACS OO OEE: 
109. McKay, Alexander: North Sydney, Nova Scotia. 
110. McLeod, James: North Sydney, Nova Scotia ..... Se lecee ee eeee oe 
111. Nearing, William: Main-a-Dieu, Nova Scotia.......--....--- Sredecias 
112, Lahey, Thomas: Main-a-Dieu, Nova Scotia .... .....0..eec. os eee 
113. Goodwin, Daniel: Cape Canso, Nova Scotia ...... ..---. .-----eeeeee 
1i4. Kelly, William: Lingan, Nova Scotia...............-. jeacccuvacese 
115. Archibald, Isaac: Cow Bay, Nova Scotia...... 2... ese0 seee cee nee cone 
116. Dobson, Joseph: South Sydney, Nova Scotia..............-..-2--- 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Affidavits in support of British case, Appendix G—Continued. 
117. Peach, John: Cow Bay, Nova Sootia...... ..-20. coccee enece Satvaers 
128. Fraser, James: South Bar, Nova Scotia ...... 22.20 cecccc cewcca coce 
119. Ferguson, John: Cow Bay, Nova Scotia...... 2.200 eccce caccce cece 
geo. Murphy, John: Liogan, Nova Scotia ........ cs ceccce coaccces ence 
121. Matheson, Angus: South Sydney, Nova Scotia ............-.e0 se«- 
322. Sweet, William H.: Fall River, Mags .........-2. sce. cecce Pate ie, hats 
eer ATCoIbald, james + BOston, MSSS.72cacc c+ cscs eres heaeen ooeee eee 
a. Khnomas,Richard:: Booth Bay, M6. sos css coicc cocccaaccegescacaes . 
125. Hamilton, John R.: New Carlisle, Quebec...... ... 22. 22.2 acon cocce . 
126. Conture, Baptiste: Grand River, Gasp6............-.2- seceee sone = 
a. call, KdwardiG,; New Carlisle; Qudbee.....cscas csc0 caceccucaoncan 
128. Gardner, William Edward: Louisburg, Nova Scotia................- 
129. Lemontais, Philip: Arichat, Nova Scotia...... 2... ..cccc- cccces cone 
130. Smyth, Christopher: Port Hood, Nova Scotia ..........-....-002--- 
Bei. Brand, John I.: Pubnico, Nova Scotia... cccscce peccncccce cred ocecas 
132. Hirtle, Edward: Lunenburg Town, Nova Scotia.............-..... : 
zoo. Riser, Rofus: Rose Bay, Nova Scotia ... 2.2 200 ceccce concecece sedan 
134. Morien, John: Port Medway, Nova Scotia... ... .. 222. ccccne ence cece 
135. Smeltzer, John: Lunenburg Town, Nova Scotia ........ 2.2.2 .cseee 
136. Richards, Elias: Getson’s Cove, Nova Scotia .............-.-..--e0- 
137. Getson, James: Getson’s Cove, Nova Scotia .......-...... ealcaasckhs 
138. Publicover, James: New Dublin, Nova Scotia ...-............ naiees 
139. McDougall, Donald: Main-a-Dieu, Nova Scotia.................-... 
240. Bagnall, John: Gabarus, Nova Scotia... 22. 0.0... cecnce cence cccwce 
141. Bosdet, Peter: West Arichat, Nova Scotia...... 2.2.20 ceccce oe ee cee P 
142. Marmean, Francis: Arichat, Nova Scotia .........222 ceecee ence sae 
143. Grouchy, David: Descousse, Nova Scotia ...... ...... 2-220 ene eee 
g24. Le Blanc, Isidore: Arichat, Nova Scotia .........00 secsce cece sconces 
245. Murphy, Bryan: Port Hood, Nova Scotia.... .....2...2--+ secccecece 
146. Ferris, Simon: West Arichat, Nova Scotia.........-......20---e eee: 
147. Crichton, William: West Arichat, Nova Scotia...... ............--- 
148. Levesconte, Isaac: Arichat, Nova Scotia ...... 22.22. cecene ceccccce 
149. Wentzel, William: Moose Harbor, Nova Scotia.........-....--- alge 
150. Gardner, Pardon: Port Mouton, Nova Scotia...........--..--.-.-.- 
151. McLeod, George: Brooklyn, Nova Scotia...... .... 02-2. esecee eocees 
152. Lloyd, John: Port Mouton, Nova Scotia... 2... 0.2.20. .--20e cone cone 
153. McDonald, Robert J.: Port Jollie, Nova Scotia. .....-.......---.--- 
154. Frehil, William: Aricbat, Nova Scotia. .........-...----- -2-e- havde 
155. Diggdon, Philip: Port Medway, Nova Scotia. .......-...-.--.------ 
156. McDonald, Michael: Whitehaven, Nova Scotia..................-.- 
157. Murphy, George: Port Hood, Nova Scotia..............-.2.---.-. a 
258. Phelan, James: Arichat, Nova Scotia....... ..222. 222. cecces co0e oe 
159. Robertson, Hilaire: Griffin’s Cove, Gaspé, Quebec .........-- tee eaen 
160. West, Donald: Grand Gréve, Gaspé, Quebec ........--.-..---00 --- 
161. McInnis, Michael: Port Daniel, Quebec..........-....--..-..------ 
162. Rogerson, Hon. James J.: St. John’s, Newfoundland.........-...-.- 
163. Mercer, Isaac: Bay Roberts, Newfoundland.......-...---..-------- 
164, Fiander, Samuel: Coombs Cove, Newfoundland ...-....-.....----.-- 
165. Bishop, George: Burin, Newfoundland..........-....---.-.-.------ 
166. Hickman, George Ambrose: Grand Bank, Newfoundland ..--.....-.-.. 
167. Lake, John, sr.: Fortune, Newfoundland. ........-.....----.-+-- we 
168. Simms, George: Grand Bank, Newfoundland.........--...---- wesac 
169. Holman, Henry T.: Harbor Breton, Newfoundland. ......-....--.-- 
170. Legresby, John: Point St. Peter, Quebec. .......-.. ...----+--+---++- 
171. Fauve), John B.: Point St. Peter, Quebec............---. +20 +--+ 
172. Legros, John: Point St. Peter, Quebec. .... ........-----+ ---- +--+ 
173. Collas, Adolphus E.: Point St. Peter, Quebec.........-...--------+-- 
174. Orange, Daniel: Paspebiac, Quebec....-... -.---.----++ -+0+----0+-- 
175. Mourant, Joshua: Paspebiac, Quebee.......----- +--+ ---0+--0e+ -+-= 
176. LeBlanc, Frank: Port Daniel, Quebec ..........-. 2-02 e--2-e00--- 
177. Remon, Thomas C.: Little Pabos, Quebec...........--+-+-++--++--- 
178. O’Connor, William: Little Pabos, Quebec.......-..-.- pe eaeeate ys on 
179. Luce, John M.: Grande Greve, Quebec.........-.--------+-+-++-+-- 
180. Price, Henry : Grande Greve, Quebec ........--0+ -----+ ---020++--+- 
181. Hyman, William: Cape de Rosier, Quebec ....--..--.----++---+--++ 
182. Gavey, Abraham: Grande Greve, Quebec.... ~.-.-+---+----++-+++++- 
183. Ferguson, Peter: L’Ance au Beaufils, Quebec. ...--. -..--+-+--++ +++ 
184. Baker, Christopher: Cape Cove, Quebec ....... .----++++++ pcece cece 


3460 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Affidavits in support of British case, Appendix G—Continued. 


185. 


252, 


Phillips, David: Peninsula, Gaspé, Quebec ......-...--------------- 


. Miller, Richard: Peninsula, Gaspé, Quebec ..---. -...-----.-------- 

. Rooney, James: Percé, Quebec .---~.- ... 220 ees 22 eo ee ee ee ee ee eee eee 

. LeBrun, Francis: Percé, Quebec. .....- ~~ ~~. .-ecee mace ee ne se veces 

. Johnstone, William: Magdalen Islands, Quebec ........-.-...------ 

. Fournier, Charles: Magdalen River, Quebec.........-.--..--------- 

SNoil; Alexis Hox River, QUuCbDeGs.--aseiscuiasee peas covsmeasiscssieaes 

. Packwood, John: Cape Rosier, Quebec. ...2.- 2. - cc. coos coe cee ce oeee 

3. Tapp, Mesiah: Fox River, Quebec. .- .... .----- 2... e202 +200 eee eee 

, Samuel, James: Fox River, Quebec... ..---4.----- cones veneer --s0se 

. Trachy, Edward :-Perc6é, Quebec. coo econ ene oe? wan n coms o> selecen 

2 Bann, Pdward::Poxilver, Quehetsc.c0 5-6 esac eeoeaus pssst aac s 

. Payson, Joseph D.: Westport, New Brunswick ............. .--2-+--- 

. Cook, Thomas C.: Cape Canso, Nova Scotia........--.. .--cc0ceeeee 

. Wyse, William: Chatham, New Brunswick ...... 20.2. -n-2-- seccee 

y Rly mi, James bereo, QUueveG ccc. sone ae ebennveeosiseoe ow coer ene 

schlyon;-bBamund.; Perce, Quebec... ee pasny cae ae na aaeceseeer oss 

. Vardon; John: Mal, Bay, Quenee .<2---.6es seo rinc as ee- eesisesnenintas 
. Damaresq; George: Fox River, Quebec’... -...,-.aqss+sses-=2 ers 
. Campion, Alexander: Magdalen River, Quebec ...--. ......---.---- 

2 Malouin, Alexis;: Gritin’s Cove, Quebec.2: 25. ee nes acc scenes 
: Gaul, Charles: Douglas Town; Quebees 522 .--25 25. cas ssces <seeccen 
- Papp; mobertcloxaWivel, QUCDCU Sse< nea saciseee ns sana seecaeeie ta 
. McCauley, Luke: Douglas Town, Quebec... -.....- 5-2 .< 2-22 sevens 

. MeRay, Thomas: Gaspé, Quebeo sc. 3. 15-5352 <2 -ssgny es ooqeeni-= =< 
LeNOil,-Erancis;: Ox RIVer, Quepee: gsc sseaase acess ne Syescese~e se4e5 
</ J OS8Op, Janes: NOW pert, QUOD .cnci-s one ous so esa coe se niaeccicnes 
. Hammond, S. B.: Lockeport, Nova Scotia......-.. Se pEpeccesapesaee 
= Lloyd, William: Lockeport, Nova: Seosim..--¢ << <<csaqsccsccc'en sane 
. Alexander, James W.: Point St. Peters, Quebec............-.. .----- 
. Privel, George: St. George, of Mal Bay, Quebec.....---..-- eee 
3. Devot, Daniel: Magdalen Islands, Quebec .... .... ..---. -.00 s--ace00 
> Sinette, Joseph : Griffin’s. Cove, Quebec... -- <=. <-.<c56csy cose -de+es 

--Phelan,.John::; Port Daniel, QueveGst so sc2~0, o-ceseses = scases ees ee 
. Lafrance, Sixte: Magdalen Islands, Quebec .-....-.-.. ais Sateeelt otras 
. Cormier, Gabriel : Magdalen Islands, Quebec. ............--- aoe 
<.Conway, Edward -A.s G@aspo; Ouebee: 22.2.5 es es aos a= cae sep aesp 
e SITOIS, Ebilias: 1) slob @Nebee 226. a's sie taunt cons cosas we maese see 
~ menouf, John :Carlisie; Quebec)... <..30- -cacscics seca esepens assess 
- Bower, William Francis: Point St. Peter, Quebec ..---.-.-.-.-- paaomse 
- Boudreau, Hyppolyte: Esquimaux Point, Quebec... ..-.....---...-. 
- Cormier, Francis: Esquimaux Point, Quebec.........--....--. .e-0- 
- Doyle, Placide: Esquimaux Point, Quebec. ....°,.....-.22 <2 a<<ces-s 
- Cormier, Gabriel: Esquimaux Point, Quebec. ..-....-..---..------- 
- Boudreau, Nathaniel: Esquimaux Point, Quebec. -............-....-- 
- Boudreau, Julien: Esquimaux Point, Quebec.............----.----- 
7 Louzel, Philips: Sheldrake, Quebec 2. a.-cs55 ssp ose rosea eeines epee. 
- Bouchard, Samuel: Magdalen Islands, Quebec...-....---...----.-- = 
- Seaboyer, Gabriel: Lower LaHave, Nova Scotia...........--...---- 
- Mullins, Patrick : South Bar, Sydney, Nova Scotia........--...---.. 
- Rooney, Michael: Douglas Town, Quebec......-... .----. --.- secce ° 
- Briord, Peter : Douglas Town, Quebec -.--.-...---. Jiccusieassnepede 
- Kennedy, Andrew: Douglas Town, Quebec ..........---- --.---4-<s 
- Brochu, Pierre: Seven Islands; Quebec; ...2->-.--<.05e00esescedinsss 
- Chouinard, Isaac’:: Cape Chat: Quebet: 2.5252 -ccacucseecssemeeaess 
- Locke, Austen : Lockeport, Nova Scotia... ... .....---.. cece cece cee 
- McAdams, Daniel: Lockeport, Nova Scotia .........- su sumac cusees 
» Fournier, Messie: Grande Valée, Quebée: <. <2<- << ease-cegesseaeers 
- Haddon, William: Grosse Isle, Quebec. ...... 2... seeee+ eee ene eee nas 
- Carter, John: Port Mouton, Nova Scotia. ........-... --...---- ‘eee 
- McLeod, William: Port Daniel, Quebec.......-....--.. .--22- 022+ 
- Matthews, Allan: East Ragged Islands, Nova Scotia..........-..---- 
- Murray, David, jr.: Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia........-.....-.---- 
. Condon, Thomas: Guysboro’, Nova Scotia ..........- hac sneCaGcrumen 
. McKenzie, Alexander: Crow Harbor, Nova Scotia ...-...----. Seca 
- Robertson, Michael: Port Jollie, Nova Scotia. .....-...-..---------- 
- Pablicover, Geoffrey W.: Getson’s Cove, Nova Scotia............--- 


Seaboyer, James S.: Rose Bay, Nova Scotia ........ .cece0---eee eens 


o- 


ges SURU BREN EERE RHEE ENE EEN 


SERRERRERT I TET 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Affidavits in support of British case, Appendix G—Continued. 


253. 
254. 
255. 


Ps 


257. 


3 


259. 
260. 
261. 
262. 


278. 


304. 


. Munroe, William: Whitehaven, Nova Scotia.............. 


. Rennels, Isaac W.: Port Hood, Nova Scotia..........-...c.----- 


. Bushen, James: Port Mouton, Nova Scotia 
. Gardiner, John P.: Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia ; 


Ritcey, Thomas, sr.: Lower La Have, Nova Scotia ....-....--+ marae 
Smith, William D.: Port Hood, Nova Scotia ... 2.2.2.2... ccc0 coae cece 
Skinner, Archibald B.: Port Hastings, Nova Scotia. .... . 


Munroe, Matthew: Whitehaven, Nova Scotia ..............2. .secee 
McAdams, John: Port Jollie, Nova Scotia...... 22.2... - eee eee coe 
Campbell, Donald: Port Mouton, Nova Scotia...............--.---- 
Ricbard, John Daniel: LaHave Island, Nova Scotia ................ 
McLeod, Colin: Brooklyn, Nova Scotia ...............-.- etree 


ee ee ee 


« Gillies, Alexander: Port Hood, Nova Scotia......\...2...ccc cece cece 
. Hemlow, Henry, sr.: Liscomb, Nova Scotia ..........-..-0-.. 


Watts, William: Port: Hood, Nova: Scotia ..<2..... .ccece cancuacncase 


. Smith, Joshua: Port Hope Island, Nova Scotia. ............--...... 
. Coggins, Livingston : Westport, Nova Scotia. .........-.....--.-.-. 
. Wentzel, Martin: Lower LaHave, Nova Scotia ...........--.- Ae t- 
. Christiaov, William B.: Prospect, Nova Scotia ............ ..c0 wecce. 
. McDonald, Alexander: Port Hood Island, Nova Scotia.............. 
y Gillies Angus: Port Hood; Nova Scotis. 2.2 -acsca-cet sscece occaee 


Fraser; James ©.: St. John’s, Newfoundland ..-..<..cenes sccces cece 
Bethell, John: West Barcrow, Nova Scotia. ...... ...-00 .-- eee ce enes 
Tremain, Edward D.: Port Hood, Nova Scotia ........... 2-20 ence 


. Currie, Robert: Louis Harbor, Nova Scotia ...... 2... 20.00 eee cone 


Matthews, Parker: Black Point, Nova Scotia ...... tee See eee 
Deagle, Robert: Souris, Prince Edward Island ........-......-..-- 
Carey, James: Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia .......-.-.... iADewsas ase 
Pinkham, Thomas: Booth BAVA MAING wacce ae ce nce aecicer esmete ses 
Harlow, Reuben: Shelburne, Nova Scotia.......-..----.. .-..-. ---- 
Smith, Judah C.: Barrington, Nova Scotia. .........-...---2. eee 
Outhouse, Amos H.: Tiverton, Nova Scotia ...............2..---20- 
Merchant, John: Hardwicke, Nova Scotia ..............---.------- 
Trask, Wallace: Little River, Nova Scotia . .............---ccce.- 
Mosley, George E.: Tiverton, Nova Scotia .............-2.----00 eee 
Payson, Charles H.: Westport, Nova Scotia.........200 .s-cce cece 
Crowell, Eleazer: Clarke’s Harbor, Nova Scotia..--- senate eas uses 
Kenny, Daniel V.: Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia .........---.---- 
Merritt, Gilbert: Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia .......-.....--.---- +--+ 
Denton, Charles W.: Little River, Nova Scotia ........---..----.-- 
Denton, Joseph E.: Little River, Nova Scotia .......----..--------- 
McKay, John: Tiverton, Nova Scotia...... aiacheictesiate a etoria aia areiat alee 
Outhouse, Whitefield: Tiverton, Nova Scotia .........----.-------- 
Snow, John W.: Digby, Nova Scotia ...... 2-220 -- +220 see nce coeees 
Foster, James Patterson: Port Williams, Nova Scotia ...-...----.-- 
Ladd, Byron P.: Yarmouth, Nova Scotia .....-.--.-----------+---- 
Thurston, Abram: Sanford, Nova Scotia ......----.-----+-----++---- 
Ryerson, Samuel M.: Yarmouth, Nova Scotia ......---. ------------ 
Eakins, Robert S., jr.: Yarmouth, Nova Scotia... ...--.---------+-- 
Ross, Daniel: North Rustico, Prince Edward Island..-...-.--------- 
McLeod, John Artemas: Kensington, Prince Edward Island ..-.-. -.--.- 
McDonald, James: Chepstow, Prince Edward Island ....--.-------- 


. McCormack, Daniel: Black Bush, Prince Edward Island......------ 
. McDonald, Avgus: Souris, Prince Edward Island .....------------- 


MeDonald, Peter: Souris, Prince Edward Island......----------+---- 


. McIntyre, John: Fairfield, Prince Edward Island ..-.--. .----.------ 
. McDonald, Michael: French River, Prince Edward Island .......--- 


Walsh, Thomas: Souris, Prince Edward Island. ...-...----.-------- 


. Doviant, Dominick: North Rustico, Prince Edward UE Ot ae ee 


Carson, Robert : North Rustico, Prince Edward Island........-. haere 


. McEachan, Charles: Township No. 46, Prince Edward Island...---- 
. McLean, Daniel C.: Black Bush, Prince Edward Island ......---.-- 
. McIntyre, Daniel: Black Bush, Prince Edward Island...-.. .------- 
. Milner, Thomas: Parker’s Cove, Nova Scotia. ...-------+++--+-+ +--+ 
. Cousins, James W.: Digby Town, Nova Scotia. .-..---------+--++-- 
. Swain, David: Port Clyde, Nova Scotia.....-..-----+----+++++++--- 
. Bolman, Robert Henry: Sand Point, Nova Scotia ........-..------- 


3462 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Affidavits in rebuttal, in support of British case: 
1. Rumsey, Thomas: St. John’s, Newroundland .................----- 


x 


. Inkpen, Robert: Barin, Newfoundland. .............-.--------- +--+ 
. Power, Stepben: Placentia, Newfoundland. ...... .... ...-.2 .--.---- 
. Fiander, Stephen: Coombs Cove, Newfoundland.......-......-..-.. 
5. Thornhill, Philip: Anderson Cove, Newfoundland .............-...- 
3. Rose, George: Jersey Harbor, Newfoundland.......-....---.....-.. 
. Bonia, Maurice: Placentia, Newfoundland ..._..... ...-2. -- +... eec0 
. Sullivan, Humphry: Placentia, Newfoundland. ......--......------ 


Affidavits produced on behalf of the United States: 


COs Om Owe 


. Hodgdon, Freeman: Boothbay, Me .............-----0 Scasecomecdae 
Berry, Lhomas: Boebhbay, M6 i222 ce -scocnastina]>e< so =2 ses aec nas: 
./ Daton William: s@astine; Mec .2 css. nasieecnadioer sees seas capgee c= 
+ Crane, y..G.e GouldsboroughsMoewce ss. ab sce seca race sees oes eke tres 
. Willard, Henry E.: Cape Elizabeth, Me ..2--< 2..45sn.2652% sess eccces 
; Tratant; Alberti D.:: Harpsweus Me os oc can -<seaiem anes oo onic pec icoas 
= Willard) Hnoch:G.:: Portland; Mon 2.srcaeeccciac aces acces pecans 
. ‘Trefethen;: George: Portland): M6.< =. << ..sess<</secqssqcciiscsecepemmne 
} Conley, John: Portland; Mers.sossss0ace cee sess sane geste ase eases 
t Wihitten:O.853; Portland »Mepeceec nak oo Uaeninc wenccerecereseeers 
« Chase, Stephen: B-: :Poctlands Mo iiscecs cascuecks acer ase cncoceipess 
2. Rich, Marshall N.: Portland, Me.z.<.24 ...<:.<<sc0 seit Sey oy 
. Swett, Noah: Wellileet, Mass-< s-cugiesc cece see cecs ceeest ser bees. 
. Pettingill, Charles C.: Salem, Mastic. sis< caiscsipacccqcnesencsies case 
5. Nelson, William) H. * Plymouth; Maas’; case -ss%-orsneapgessasssneo ss 
mall, Asa. W.:; Nantucket, Mase ci outs <3 been ceisepde oucincees 
. Smalley, Charles E.: Kenny, Reuben C., Nantucket, Mass ....-..--.. 
« Crowell, Elisha: Brooklyn, NY: occsndenge pews ssdecisp ceasiese sees 
;. Muckerson, Caleb: Brooklyn, NoY. s. ccwsccmat anes oweces eee cece vees 
.. Babson, Horatio::Gloucester,. Mane \.22<.c.<:cra nics So-stgeswatio sqclene= 
. Friend, Sydney, & Brother: Gloucester, Mass...........-2..--.------ 
» Plumer, George W.<:> Gloacester, Masa <2 2. cacdin-50<0 abiceade ences 
. Knowlton, Harvey: Horton, Edward A., Gloucester, Mass ....-....--- 
. Pierce, Albion K.; Bearse, George ; Hamilton, James R.; McDonald, 


John: Gloucester Maes: 323s etesens teecus Coates ac okcmnetens pone 


. Norwood, George; Ayer, James S.: Gloucester, Mass. ........---.---- 
. Leighton, Andrew ; Falt, Walter M.: Gloucester, Mass ...........--- 
. Wonson, William:C:: Gloucester, Masa ...: 3.5, dsincas so << geradaqua-s=e 
. Friend, George, & Co.: Gloucester, Maggs... 5.2 .-- see once:ccan ves 
.. Gerring, Frederick;:\Gloucester, Mass:o<2o.kccec-<-+ ashaseam sb ogns 
. Wonson, Frederick G.: Gloucester, Mass:... . ac.cnsons cous meensdences 
» Lew, Charles HH... Gloucester; Mags: 2: 15. .sises aon cacepe steed eseds -9s= 
;, Mansfield, Alfred: Gloucester, Mass ...2-< <2. cac'secose ens deigacm ens 
. Steele, George: Gloucester, Mass... .....<.cis. osceceqnswage cortec haeaes 
Smith; Sylvanus':Gloucester,, Mass'.~.2< as-~ easicncaagelesbs sab pbeeer 
5:; Whelen; Morris:Gloucester; Mass <c cues.ge o0cciesiccoa wesses cc acerie ae 
mn arady, Thomas: Gloucester, Maas: :scmch coach caccaecsee'ss/ssoemads 

:, barr, James, G. > Gloucester, Masso... 5.5 css ccnwaawoes sams pag aseicepye 
8. Gorman,: John E.: Gloucester, Mass). 4s <caccsticc5tasce sonceemect suas 
;, Warren; Nicholas’: ‘Gloucester, Masss. i<22..55 4066 sande weeeclennn cess 
. Hardy, Henry >: Gloucester; Mass... .s0.-cces ash ces csienceiveveseobess 
~-paunders, vonn, i.) Gloucester: Masa <:: co. sss cedoadeoese eee ase ee 
2., Hannan, Richards: Gloucester, Mass. ..ccuecacen-ghoce co s4encas oeece 
., Morey, Stephen: B.:\: Deer Island, Me: .2. so. 4.cacseccsteas enone sence s 
.- Webb, Seth; Webb, C. H. 8.: Dear Island, Mo..<.-\-. 45 cacntssdanes=< 
jetaples: Johns Swans island, Mo. cc. cececse scot cece acts e sac teonee 
>.. Perkins Brothers : Gloucester, Mass ....2. dove sc cdscas cave seumeekeess~ 
- Pew; John-J.;& Son: Gloucester; Masai----<- osc e cece toe ewace cere 
«Smith: & Oakes: Gloncester,; Mana... .cce0 is suns vee soa teusingesmers 
| Walen; Michael’: Gloucester, ‘Masso. <--<<- ocuep cons cece eciccee cores 
. Pettingell, Charles D.: Gloucester, Mass ..<-<.:s.<.0+ .<-s.ctcescsene . 
; Maddox,:B:,:& Co: :: Gloucester,Mass <2. <o.csscaesoqsbesoosues's os 
52. Dennis, George, & Co.: Gloucester, Mass ...... ....s0csscoee + occ 
«. Proctor; Joseph: O..: ‘Gloucester, Mass::: <os.¢<so2eentwatlsocme eos «soe 
- Haskell, Samuel): Gloucester, Mass... 2. sce: <i scan semesececs seiae eer 
» Kriend,. Joseph::: Gloucester, Mass* <<. oc. csds .cccen tusk cect ens cess 
56. Lane, Samuel, & Brother: Gloucester, Mass....... . eceeascgs oneewee 
- Steele, George:: Gloncester:|Mass'. 2.25.2. cscs ves nee eee ene aoe 


Cunningham & Thompson: Gloucester, Mass. ......--2.--..0+ -seeee- 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3463 


| e. 
Affidavits produced on behalf of the United States—Continued. sae 

7 | mee Dennis & Ayer: Gloucester, Maes’. 2... ... cccedsicc able Buck de BVileoce 3124 

| 60. Wonson, William C.: Gloucester, Mass .......... 22... +... ieihee’Jadn 3125 

| 61. Sayward, Epes, ae Sayward, George, Gloucester, Mass.............. 3126 

| 62. Sayward, Daniel: Gloucester, Mass ..... o wesecdssicswthal 6oetw Viddete 3127 

; | 63. Parsons, William, 2d, & Co.: Gloucester, Mass..................---. 3128 

64. Wonson & Co. (Wonson Brothers): Gloucester, Mass. ..........-..-- 3129 

65. Norwood, George, & Son: Gloucester, Mass.............-----.--.--- ‘ 3130 

-66. Whalen, Leonard: Gloucester, Mass .............-.2..--e0- juabsobatl 3131 

| me. owe & Jordans Gloucester, Maas... 6s. 505% occ cc dns betwen Vedios 3132 

| 68. Knowlton, Harvey, jr.: Gloucester, Mass ........... 2.22... scee ceeeee 3133 

we. Friend, Sidney > Gloucester, Mass. .. <<. cdtc ovis ccccosscutucdep ceeds 3135 

70. Low, Benjamin (David Low & Co.): Gloucester, Mass ......... sbi ane 3136 

me. Leighton & Co.: Gloucester, Mass. ...... vessel cciteteccccsoderdccns 3137 

i} 72. Tarr, James G., & Brother: Gloucester, Mass........ ......--2+ 2-0 3135 

| oe. Smith & Gelé: Gloucester, Maes. oii. oo cccctcldviicccs odes sdeded usps 3139 

4. Clarke & Somes: Gloucester, Mass... ... ...ciscces.ccccctcccclcccucs 3140 

| ¥o. Wonson, John F., & Co.: Gloucester, Maas. ...... -ccaceccccccccccecs 3142 

mo, erootor::4,-G,.:Gloncester, Mase... 2. cues dsdcc dt eccac vewwsasi eer 5 3143 

77. Smith, Aaron; Thomas, Jerome B.: Gloucester, Mass ............--. 3144 

78. Burrill, E., & Co.: Newburyport, Mass .........c.0.cceee coccee avon 3145 

79. Boardman, T. H., & Co.: Newburyport, Mass ........... cece secce . 3146 

80. Ireland & Trefethen: Newburyport, Mass ..... 2.2.2.2... eee ceccee 3147 

| er. Bayley, R., & Son: Newburyport, Mass 2.2... 0206.00 ne so ceeccsecee 3149 

| 82. Currier, Charles O.: Newburyport, Mass...... 2.2... .--c2e cece cacces 3150 

| 83. Union Wharf Company: Provincetown, Mass .........--...-....---- 3151 

| $4, Central Wharf Company: Provincetown, Mass .........-....-.+--e- 3152 

we. Cook, H. & 8., &-Co.: Provincetown, Mags... . .scceccccc cacsecceus 3153 

ne. srooman;-P. M.: Provincetown, Mass. .22.0.ssc0cd ciwasnscvsccsnessce 3154 

87. Freeman & Hilliard: Provincetown, Mass ..-....-.. ....0. 22-2 secees 3155 

oe. Crocker & Atwood: Provincetowo, Mags .........---- e--0 --20 teence 3156 

me: Cook, -B::&E..K.: Provincetown, Maas... sia. .c0cccvcsvensseessucnee 3157 

oe. Paynesd.-& L. N.: Provincetown, Mage ... <6 c.ce scecnccccccesccccs 3159 

ae, Whort, Philip A.: Provincetown, Mass. ..... .0-6-.-ccss seetceecsess 3160 

we. Lewis, B:A., & Co.: Provincetown, Mass ...... 2.220. secees soccce ne 3161 

me, Conwell; David: Provincetown, Mass. .... . ...cs0 cccces cwcccccscscce 3161 

94, Central Wharf Company: Wellfleet, Mass ......... ..-..----. eeeeee- 3162 

95. Commercial Wharf Company: Wellfleet, Mass .........---..-..-.--- 3164 

96. Mercantile Wharf Company: Wellfleet, Mass............-.--.----- ie 3165 

om, Nickerson,-Honry : Dennisport, Mass .-..)<22..5 2.22 6-2. coscs See se 3166 

98. Nelson & Harlow: Plymouth, Mass ................---------- acess 3167 

99. Manter & Blackmer: Plymouth, Mass .. ...... 22.20. 20-200 cece cece 3165 

moo, Tower, Abrabam H.: Cohassct, Mass .... ..... 22... 22.00 cece cccece 3169 

an. eaten, John: Cohasset, Mase... - ied -<22. dasieus cccatecess socsas 3170 

102, Baker & Ellis: Dennisport, Mass. .......... 2.222222 -200-- seeee Saws 3171 

103, Eldridge, Levi: South Chatham, Mass.............----- -s--0+ 2-0-5 3172 

404, Weekes, D. F.: South Harwich, Mass 2.222. 2.2222 con cece ce cece ene 3173 

am: Sevall, Caleb: South Harwich, Mass... ..-. .- 22 o.cneswess sacccsccees 3174 

106. Doane, Valentine: Harwich Port, Mass.......-.--. Oe ear awErc ee 3175 

807. Baker, T..B.: Harwich Port, Maas. ...... 2.2.00 coccens ceccce cece cece 3176 

108. Doane, V., jr., & Co.: Portemouth, N. H.....4 02-00 ceee- seen ee ee ees 3177 

109, Tredick, C. Morris: Portsmouth, N. H.......--.-.--00- ----2+ + eeeeee 3178 

110, Frye, James: North Haven and Camden, Me.......-..----.---+++--- 3179 

111. Tolman, George: Deer Isle, Me...... .-..-.----+ -+-2-+ e220 se eeee sees 3180 

242, Willard, E. G.: Portland, Me.... ..-.2....cees oe oe one ce cces coccec es 3181 

m3. Jordan & Blake: Portland, Me.... ... 22. 2-22. coos cecece co nnes coccce 3183 

114. Lewis, Whitten & Co.: Portland, Me.....--.-.-.--------- -+-++++--- 3154 

115. Dyer, Charles A.: Portland, Me...... ..---. .-- 200 eon 0 cee ene coee cone 3185 

116. Jordan, W.S., & Co.: Portland, Me .... ..---- --.. --- 22+ eee eee co eeee 3186 

117. Trefethen, George, & Co.: Portland, Me....-...---.-------+--++----- 3187 

118, Sawyer, J. W., & Co.: Portland, Me.... .....-.----- ----22 eeee eee eee 3189 

919. Thomes, Chase & Co.: Portland, Me........<-.. --- 200 cccece oes cece 3190 

| 120. Chase, E. H.: Portland and Boothbay, Me..-.-...--.-.----.------ +++ 3191 

ie B81. Trefethen, C. & H.: Portland, Me.... .........-0.+-ecee scenes soceee 3192 

| 122. Chase & Cushing: Portland, Me........-.---+. +--+ --+-2+ ++--++ +++ 3193 

123. Maddocks, William T.: Southport, Me.....-...---------+---+-+++-- 3194 

124. Orne, Freeman: Southport, Me..---.-..-- +++ ++-00+ e222 cee eee ceeeee 3195 

125. Peirce, Moses E., & Co.: Boothbay, Me .-..---.-.--+-+ +--+ -+++++---- = 


126. Hodgdon, Stephen G.: Boothbay, Me.... ..---+ +++ ++ --+s00 --- e022 eee 


3464 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


See produced on behalf of the United States—Continued. 
o7. Lewis. Alien: boothbay,"Mescs<i-cscsecue = sec cem seer elececs Oise ecto 


198 
129. 
130. 
131. 
132. 
133. 
134. 
135. 
136. 
137. 
138. 
139. 
140. 
141. 
142. 
3.. Jackman, Richard’: Port: Mulgrave ss. 22. .2s8 40 Sccd feces. ects sac en 
. Smith, Thomas Charles: Port Hood Island, C. B--......-......-..... 
. Strahan, Asberry: Auld’s Cove, Canso...........--..-6-- Sere sect te 4 
. Smith, Nathaniel :.Port Hood Island, C.'B.:2.... w.csosakc cece cn ceee 
> Cameron, Hugh: New Town, Canso:. 522 0-cies 20 sts Becesie es noes 
. Johnson, James: Port, Hastings, Gab: i. 42 222 20c 2-5-5 ck ese deke 
. Fox, Thomas Edward: Fox Pond) Camsecove. coun ae sae estes Reese ae 
: McAlpine, William H.: Louisburg, Gob ses ev cce ss ee sce ssee cee 
. Townsend, Joseph: Louisburg, C. Biesccicastnscetocs sa etna’ sett Geua 
. Peeples, James: Pirate Cove, N.S......--sucesd.- cursed ew sews cae 
3. Peeples, Samuel: P.: Pirate Cove, N. § ccainsxiteweosss -255..0028- ob 
» Crittenden, Isaiah. Pirate. Cove; N. (Ss. we t8 cece cos gece d cs tesa 
. Crittenden, E. Aug. : .Pirate. Cove, NUS: acs -2ststiest c2.- coed ceca e 
. Leeples, Ebenezer C.: Pirate Cove, No 8.2 -stac. cs ut Shrees ies acs 
« Peeples, Samuel H.: Port Mulgrave... ..2. 35552... -eticteane ar ects 
. MeNair, James: Port Mulgrave... csd2 sc2ecce cscs cece sear boss deen 
, Murray, John: Port Mulgrave... is<se6 ccccas actccnicsmccssoaed ose 
. Ingraham, John H.: North Sydney, C. B......---.-.--.-.- SBA Go one 
« Moore, William H.: North: Sydney.Cs Bue i252... sso 62s. cbeaese nse 
; McDonald, Allan :\Cape Jack; 'N.'S)s.ses<=.-jccsessnunee poke deblens Oo saiws 


Hodgdon, Albion..P:: Boothbay,Me..232 2.0 sso ts so ele cates ae suo 
Maddocks, Luther: Boothbay, Mo)ss-.o. feb Shee eb Beto se cc ec. 
Reed, Levi :. Boothbay, Me-. so 2.c2 sole. ces each tadeawbedaaeieses- cscs 
Blake, Charles:C.: Boothbay ,)Me. atin .cose suit 2 tS Masai cccene 
McDougall & Race: Boothbay; Meee st t).-< tele ii. c5 2. eee seas sek 
Nickerson, §., & Sons.: ‘Boothbay: Me'--). ust cts ace etn tyiec. 
McClintock, John & Co: Boothbay, Mowest ssview ors shs2 nse Sete. 
Stinson, Michael: Swan’s Island, Me. <<< os 3S. Hse snatscbe< escdehe ces 
McDonald, Lewis: North Haven, Me--. 22. swess. ci scae soe s- 0 cts. ewes 
Wasgatt, Gs & Co.:e5wan's leland,, Merc cyetiee. eben code sp ecccuscoes 
Fitch, James: New London, Conn. Eeeee Sete eestass esas cee aes iveges 
Weaver, C. A., & Co.: New ‘London CONN Eee et eu ule satanic sot soteess 
Brown, H. A, ’& Co.: New London, Cotta z.uat:é sabe cces 1c. dain cess 
Harvey, William: Auld’s Cove, St..of Canso ioc... s-cc0. cece eee 
McEachren, Donald: New Town, St. of Canso..............--..----- 


McDonald, Donald: Cape Jack, N.S .... 22. -- 220. eee 20 coco meeeee 


. Crispo, Michael: Harbor Bouché, N.S8...-....- SAR eee eerie} 
. Webb, Patrick: Harbor Bouché, N.S........--- NAspesao sds. Bocas 
. Gillis, James: Cape Jaok, N.S. 6 cccwcacus« tc etcbictes cou saviagteldadees 
. KEmbree, William: Bear Island, Canso, N.Ss.5-.2 <22e.-cncde cele bose 
. Stuart, Charles: Bear Island, Canso, N.8..- cccse cactus cas ote ace duce 
. Levanger, Edward : Harbor Bouché, N. 8.22 ccc s:cccic so secs cnen steel ee 
. Langley, George: Bear Island, St. of Canso.... ......-------- s--2 -eee 
- McPherson, Hugh : Bear Island, St. of Cans0s.c2 0.26 acte.-ccnecencies 
. Embree, Chandler: Bear Island, St. of Canso0.........-.. .--2 25 seeose 
« Cohoon; Solomon::: Cape Canso, NS. ....cccsssidees weclctls oves.-cisceess 
- Cook, Thomas C,: Cape Canso, N.'8 <<. 4 .sccede dee toewe se es ccscamtss 
. Hart, "Alfred W. : Cape Canso, No Sic5. cots8 eo telas sce sce ees emen eon 
: McKeen, James G.: Port Hastings, St. of Canaso-2 <2... \s0ai.. 00 ce ~ 
. Bunker, George : Margaret Bay NisBiec cscs ase se cemce cease sep ee 
. Marmeau, Francis: Arichat, Isle Madame........-.--.------- sees eeee 
; Girrois, James L.: Arichat, Tala Madaine si cisen ote occ ees 
. LeBlane, Isidore: Arichat, Isle Madamesc cen ucts ccs clscch cco cas ets 
. LeBlanc, Simon P.: W. Arichat, Isle Madame.............--.-------- 
. Theriot Simon (Terrio): W. Arichat, Isle Madame:22--ciooccee sence ce 
3. Le Vesconte, William: Isle Madame, CyBbceenca css scesiee cated pases 
. Doyle, Charles: Rocky Bay, Isle Madame... 2..252.0-..2.s0405 Necro 
>. Gruchy, David: Isle Madame, C. B.......---..+----+- +--+ Satecitsoece 
. Grant, John: Hawkesbury, St. of. Canso...... 00.02. --ceaececcce cece 
: Walsh, Patrick:Steep Creok,'N; -Sicscoaace: eetavc ce cccsexceenee case 
; Critchet, George: Middle Milford, NuSecscdscetcs orsnccaeenmencconar 
: Carrigan, Christopher : Lower Milford, 1, Bt Perr eh eT Sorter ree 
. England, William T.: Middle Milford, NV Sicez io cond hbmmseeeics fact 
. Ryan, Martin: Middle Milford; NoSi ees veswocdotes so chew sntsanoss we 
. Ryan, Philip: Middle Milford, NS BSE ae, ais eRe eee ceeg ys 


gel hata Lower Milford, N. oi schepehsecebleoecp teakesscecse 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3465 
1 . , Page. 
Affidavits produced on behalf of the United States—Continued. 
mn Carrigan, huofns : Lower Milford, N..8.....2 cce<s coccovtusvsecece ce 3265 
196. Walsh, Edward : Lower Milford, N. S................ cule eeede cies 3265 
am, Lowrie, Charles: Middle Milford, N. 8.........< cocetcocccus coaclcouc 3266 
198. Nicholson, Nicholas: Port Hastings, St. of Canso...............2000-- 3267 
199. McEachren, Duncan: Craignish County, C. B..............2... ewades 3268 
200. Laidlaw, George: Craignish County, C. B...............-2- Sccwalenued 3269 
201. McDonald, Roderick: Low Point, N.S.............22..e0ee ee ; 3270 
meneactaneld, Daniel: Low Point, N. Sirs sos c(cesceccccskctscncescanve 3271 
203. McKinnon, Dougald : Long Point, N. S.... 2... 2... 22. ..22 eee Sasaeuk 3272 
204, Morgan, Moses G: Fislifax, Ni25 cdewsta caves ucsvesdove wos scek eke 3273 
mr pemeiey, Richards Halifax, N.S... o.< csccesc«cccees sucess seeds ise 3276 
mm Giarabrook. von ralitax No N.S. vo. caccsasss sce Sou <k ccheeaco dene 3278 
SR SURV. Ve iets oS OIAE Rak cow wan neabewe tee beé vad saslmeh ones 3280 
aaeee, Molloy William [A.]: Newfoundland ...... 00.2 0.020. ccc ece scececc cece 3282 
, 209. Griffin, Levi: St. John’s, Newfoundland.......... Seen cue eane teen 3223 
210. Cobb, Henry A. : St. John’s, Newfoundland... ...... ...........eeeee 3284 
6211. Brown, Cyrenius: Trepassy, Newfoundland...... 2.2.0... ecoe cocces 3285 
212. Fitzgerald, William: St. John’s, Newfoundland....-.........--- wares 3286 
fea wate, Charles: H.:: Gloucester, Mass..-2. 62.6256. ssocic cob acsucicews 3287 
mae Oakley, Joseph: Gloucester, Maas.......sccuac cscncc coscce cece cccccce 3287 
men. McDonald, Mathew : Gloucester, Maas... -... 1.5. acco coccccscececsce 3288 
naa6. Walsh, Patrick: St. John’s, Newfoundland...............ccccccccese 3289 
eai7. Brown, James : St. John’s, Newfoundland ........... ccc. ee cee cosces 3289 
‘eaeeic. McKinnon, Jobn H. : Gloucester, Mass...... 2... .e.20- connec cocccccs 3290 
eee. Carzon, John: Pictou, N. 8.........-.....-- eesice ica ceeineeseus nah 3291 
220. Dennis, John G.: Gloucester, Mass..-... ere ee rr ree cosas. 3291 
mo Leionwn, Andrew : Gloucester, Masa ...< ....2.. = s.sseces tccoscweocss 3292 
222. Reeves, Robert J.: Gloucester, Mass.......... 5 eee re a ee 3293 
Bee ciT Oy. s Wiliam t.*'| Gloucester, Mass c.c6 osceccce woocsccsesatewaess 3293 
See EHC: AG POM:S (HLOUCEALEr,, MASS2. = cccse soseicceU cue sae sesacceceee ses 3295 
ae. Greenleaf, William : Gloucester, Mags... .......- 2202 205 sees coon cones 3295 
mee. Knowlten, Harvey, jr. : Gloucester, Mags... .. -..-.--- 22 2.22 ecce. cece 3296 
a, Murphy, Dennis C:: Gloucester, Mass... ... 2.2.2... cccccc eccccesecas 3297 
A ROGN OOM oS (FORO HOY .05icamadese sacs aaca'ssaecwsnssecakeaevens 3297 
SEARBOIN. BONjAMIN -):(GASPOsossn sc ccs siss ower saacce cscs secace\y se eee=s 3298 
230. McCauley, Luke: Douglastown, Bay of Gaspé.........-...----.. ---- 3299 
Sane Howell, John: Sandy Beach, Caspé....-.. 2. -.20.c-ecc sec cce scecees se 3299 
232, Howell,. William : Sandy Beach, Gaspé.......-.. .-.. -2-. 22-20 cece 3300 
me erowart, Chariea: Now Carligle : 5 .050..2 cn. 20sd ened scew vee coun encores 3301 
234. Poole, Christopher C.: Rockport, Mass..........---2.2-- +--+ 2+ -e-0-- 3302 
' 235. Terry, Russell D.: Gloucester (of Nova Scotia)...... ..---- .ee-s----- 3303 
(Seo. Horrick, William: Swan’s Island, Moe.........-..... -o20--.0-- ee ee 3303 
‘jae, White, Thomas H.: Gloucester, Mass. ........2.. -.0.. .ccccce ce seeee 3305 
a, 1200, Charles: Gloucester, Mass... <0. sccccsce a stcescewcsccscssece= 3307 
239. McPhee, Joseph: Gloucester, Mass. -... 2... 2220-22 22 ee coon ce eeeee- 3308 
240. Parsons, William, 2d: Gloucester, Mass.... -.-.... .20.------0--00-- 3309 
Mal. Pool, Solomon : Gloucester, Mass... ....-...-..20 ceccce cece co ceecseces 3309 
| 9) 242. Swim, Benjamin : Gloucester, Mass........ ..----2+- eee eee eeeeees-- 3309 
| | 943, Carter, Charles F.: Gloucester, Mass.. .. .--..--- 22+ seee e220 - += 2 e- 3310 
244, Thurston, Winthrop : Rockport, Mass..........2--.----eee--e- eee ee 3311 
245. Colson, James A.: Gloucester, Mass... .....- 2222-00 eee2 see ee ee cere 3312 
246. .Coas, Henry G.: Gloucester, Mass.. ......-. --02---0- +++ eee eee essen ee 3312 
247. Tupper, Joseph J.: Gloucester, Mass... ......--+---+--0-- ++ ee eeee ee 3313 
. 248. Joyce, Hanson B.: Swan’s Island, Me.....-..-----+------ +++ +2+e+-+5- 3315 
249. Carter, Addison : Gloucester, Mass..........---2----+- ++ 22+ eeee ce ees 3316 
250. McLean, Joseph : now of Cape Negro, N. S...-.--.------+-+-+-++-+-- 3318 
251. Goodwin, A. E.: Newburyport, Mass... ...--0.--------+--ee eee sees 3318 
252. Thurlow, George D.: Newburyport, Mass..........-----+-----+++-++- 3319 
_ 253. Cook, Benjamin F.: Gloucester, Mass.....----.------+-++-+-++ee+++-- 3319 
254. Blatchford, Benjamin F.: Gloucester, Mass......-.-.-----+---+++-+--+ 3320 
255. Roberts, Thomas E.: Gloucester, Mass.-...----------- +--+ s+see+ +++ 3320 
256. Wonson, J. Warren, Adams, Joseph: Gloucester, Mass.......-+-+ +--+ 3320 
257. Martin, Charles: Gloucester, Mass .....--.-----+ +--+ +--+ -2-e02 cere 3322 
258. Parsons, William, 2d: Gloucester, Mass...-.. Ste at cure cegusaaesateie 3324 
_ 259. Jacobs, Solomon : Gloucester, Mas8.....---++ -+++-+--++--20 seeeee tees 3324 
260. Pierce, Albion K.: Gloucester, Mass......----+ «--<++++--++ tees seers 3825 
2604. Elwell, William : Gloucester, Mass....-. .----- s++ee+ sseeeeseeeee se 3326 
_ 2€1. Sinclair, Peter: Gloucester, Mass.....--------- nat Fag ae 5 ar 3327 


3466 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Affidavits produced on behalf of the United States—Continued. 
262. Rowe, William D.: Gloucester, Masa... .... ..-ccccccces cove once voce 
263. Howard, Oliver F.: Gloucester, Mass.........-....--.-- Stet cca tees 
264. Collins. J oseph W:.: Gloucester, Mens... o.... 205650 sasee cdwceecencas 
9655 Glenn J0Un. VOTH, MO. 0-5 n:c5> emma Issa ceuaw nes -e Obie tose sas 
266. Hutchinson, John P.: Bridyopors, Wogan as weaensoc os saeeseeccaes 
267. McIsaac, James : Port HawKOSDUEVE Nupeac cose oss ee te see Aas 
268, Jameson, JohniS.: Gloucester, Maae. - dace... cjnoee,- teams ee cececice 
269. Anderson, James L.: Gloucester, Mass. .... .....- 2-2. cs2- sooo cone ones 
270; Lew.8,.)esse::’ Gloucester; MASS ....502<5(cssn)-0 tates s eaee cus -coness ss 
271. Farmer, Samuel M.: Gloucester, Mags .x<. 2k .acesetew ssc taw~seccnes 
272. McDonald, Alexander : Provincetown, Mass...-......--....----.----- 
273..Covey, Alonzo: Swampscott, Maga. .2 sc. sc ime oo cons cove cess cccese 
274. Wilkins, Edward N.: Swampscott, Mass... ....-. ...2-4 .--202 seoace-- 
275. Staples, John'S.: Swan’s Island, Maine... o. 2-5. secens 2-5 saduiss<= 
276. McNeil, Daniel : Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. .......----.-.-----..--.-- 
277. Parkhurst, Charles E.: Gloucester Mass .... - .. 222. ese ose ecco cece ss 
978. Tarr, Zebulon: Gloucester, Mase 4-5. oo son tole nce ow ecnsecaucess 
279. Babson, D, C. & H.: ——— fe a Fe cate we Aired pe a 
280. Cogswell, William : Salem, Mass...... ..-2-.---- ---- -----+ ---------- 
A. H. Wanson, the: Judgment in the case of...... ...2-. -22. 222-22 ee nee 
Ar Franklin, the: Jadgment in ‘the case. Of. 3.3... -- -ccwasccccuncieccuus 
Alexander, James W.: Affidavit 214, British case.................-...----- 


Answer on behalf of the United States of America to the case of Her Britan- 
nic Majesty’s government : 
Articles of the Treaty of Washington relating to the fisheries cited ....--. 
Rights possessed by American fishermen independently of the treaty... 
Limitation of the width ef the mouths of bays and gulfs, the United States 
: IDSISh:ON Certain TUlOS <2 2552-5 acisicn ceeeoee cen eee ee cclneeseeta te cies 
Instruction to colonial authorities in 1866 with reference to inshore-tishing 
MMI¢aONe 222 est ec aes ye ote ne= ees nea eet ne sco ee seas oars 
Privileges accorded to British subjects by the Treaty of Washington... - 
Right to admit fish and fish-oil duty free into Canada of inappreciable im- 
portance ......-. Walaa Secunia ew ee ceubine wae sig curled nce ate Ceaisees 
Advantages which the United States derive from the provision of Article 
DVALE Scvotn asad ecsrenas ss sed crpnien akunmuenienemep es cee pemeanie tins 
Her Majesty’s Government are required to show the value to American 
fishermen of the inshore fisheries, as separated and distinguished 
from:those of Ghe:deep sea -< <2. - 2126s ecko he woe cree twist ese aces 
The halibut fishery, the cod fishery, with those of allied species, solely 
deep sea fisheries << soc scca<s toca etic cecss Soke sec see se ce Uae eee eee 
United States fishermen do not land to dry nets or cure fish. ........--.. 
American cod-fishermen do not tish for bait to any considerable extent in 
British territorial waters: Compensation for allowing fishermen to buy 
bait and supplies, finds no foundation in this treaty....-....-....-.... 
No benefit has as yet accrued to United States fishermen from the Treaty 
Of Washington! < so22.)--scecuc ens cee tee nnieeescen tse senmeceseckosewse 
Mackerel almost the only fish taken within the three-mile limit .-......- 
Deterioration of the mackerel fisheries. ..........--.......- Sp etder as 
Herring fishery 10 British Waters. oo03s<.42-+8 ecec ace soe beeen 
Advantages derived by British subjects from the provisions of the Washing- 
ton Treaty: 
The presence of American fishermen an advantage to Canadians. ........ 
Hon: Stewart Camphorl, Mi Pi; GNGted ccccoscsucks esc ees iecn eee nex owe ees 
Sir John A. Macdonald, quoted seseSae ane NwosL esi esa ote de eS eee 
Mr. Power, of Halifax, quoted .5. 46. .<5.cnc veseceuwecicscaec cosccuxbos cers 
Vice- Admiral Fanshawe, QU0eed<<.-0<c ccs .s ae occ ec se suedee se csewt wm dese 
Commanders of Her Britannic Majesty’s vessels Britomart, Plover, and 
Bla G:MeLeany quoted {sscucse cece coe Seco woe tne eee eee cee 
Specitic benefits conferred by the treaty: Sir John A. Macdonald, gestae 
The menbadon fishery <-: 2. --<. ...scerecs viece. sateeranders benoeae nase 


Pee nue pecuniary value of the right t to import fish and fish-oil free 
OD GUL: cto a clans So cise cn enive caeeetateeerees Bee 3 ak parte = 
Lord Elgin, quoted ;: (Jane! 241Gb) soe cc aoe cnc tnetes cose eeces ct shwcs 
Mr. Stewart Campbell, quoted eae eteicebeaucc ccs cUcewuN beens bo anradors 
Sir John A, Macdonald, QUOI Sis oe cc cc cae can eosin e eet ecw eo eats 
Mr. Power, of Halifax , quoted sMase sas Sar nee s coos calsebe tec coo cone ade 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX 3467 


Page 
Advantages derived by British subjects from the provisions of the Washing- = 
ton Treaty—Continued. 
fr hUDpON (OL Halifax, (UOtEd «2s. -cs s<s4ap owner dno paiocsamcbecekvaerens 133 
Hon. S. Campbell, of Nova Scotia, quoted. .......... 2-00 cece coceee cee: 134 
Mr. Macdonald, of Nova Scotia, quoted. ...... 0.2.2. ceccce occas coc ccs 134 
Amount of remission of duties to Canadian fishermen under the operation 

OEENOULORUY.. coco cece eco or as ee teen ccs coon eer seces sec eecn aes 135 
_walue of free access.to foreign markets. ...... ..c0ce soc cee cece cccces sees 136 
MGRIUUNINGION -ccinwintaacsaetiase caaane eapbaw secensiics ise atases bebeee 136 
Appendix A: Case of the British Government.... ..........---.2eeee cocees 77-117 
B: Auswer on behalf of the United States..................-..- 119-137 


C: Brief for the United States upon the question of the extent and 
limits of British North American inshore fisheries.........-... | 139-167 


D: British reply to the answer of the United States............. 169-187 
E: Document filed, and read July 30, 1877, in support of the Brit- 

ISD CORG a. ae eat sooo size sc oumiaes aasien alaciae caren eysa eels sidkienaa we - 189-241 
F: British evidence. Testimony of 83 witnesses.....-.......... 243-L090 


G: 319 affidavits produced in support of the case of Great Britain. 1091-1455 
H: Official correspondence, 1827 to 1872, showing encroachments 
of United States fishermen in British waters. (For list, see En- 


CTOACNIMONGS) wooo oc ieici-eiece o cab vem sepace crepes anne sce miierawe 1457-1508 

I: Return showing quantities and values of fish exports and im- 
porte of Newfoundland;:1851 to 18762-:-.<c<¢sscasaneceasscuce 1509-1519 
J: Speeches of counsel, including the final arguments. ......---. 1521-1885 

K: Brief on behalf of Great Britain, in reply to the United States 
Drlefete seh owes ete ee ee eeeaceene meee ata eo eben epee 1887-1906 
L: Evidence on behalf of the United States..................... 1907-2975 
M: Affidavits produced on behalf of the United States.......---. 2977-3343 

N: Extracts from minutes of executive council, Newfoundland, 
Va lO oo. enie.< sate nay cee Saismasiscicie veins an enc eee seanr = 3349 

O: Statistics produced on behalf of the United States (see Sta- 
GIADIOR os ceo oslo ssa sica ses op oaaiiaecae comses Sesicescins seman e es 3351-3380 

P: Judgments of British vice-admiralty courts in cases of fishing- 
vessels seized. - - - - Goce setae atc ob alnaieas simian ale Bisse seesse 3381-3398 

Q: Testimony and affidavits in rebuttal on behalf of Great Brit- 
BU sea see is ac a aaa dd Cae ase keV emcee ee Re aReeeeNe ens 3399-3448 
R: Fishing insurance and shipping papers........---.---------- 3449-2456 
Archibald, Isaac’: Affidavit 115, British case ...-.. ........--- 20 coc eee-esece 1234 
Archibald, James: Affidavit 123, British case ........-...-----+--2e00 -2-2ee 1243 
Arsineaux, Sylvan F.: Affidavit 4, British case......----. 02-220. -- eee ee eee 1095 
Ascah, John §.: Affidavit 228, United States case.... ....-----. e202 eee eee- - $297 
Ashby, Benjamin: Evidence on behalf of the United States......---..----- 2322-2390 
Asselin, Benjamin: Affidavit 229, United States case.......-...----++-----+ 3298 
Atwood, Nathaniel E.: Evidence on bebalf of the United States ..1931-2028, 2047-2049 
Award: $12,000,000 claimed by Great Britain on account of Canadian fishery - 100 
$1,440,000 claimed on account of Newfoundland fishery ....-...----- 108 
Opinion of Mr. Dwight Foster on the amount of the.....--.------- 10 
Dissent of Commissioner Kellogg...--. .. peda inch tore hagccnceseee _ 76 
Ayer, James S.: Affidavit 25, United States case..........+-------+ +--+ +--+ 3069 
Ayer, James S. (Dennis & Ayer): Affidavit 59, United States case...-....-- 3124 

B. 
Babson, D.C. & H.: Affidavit 279, United States case. .....-.---+-----+---- is 3344 
Babson, Fitz J.: Evidence on behalf of the United States..-..--..-.-+----+ 2055-2975 
Babson, Horatio: Affidavit 20, United States case. ......----.----+-+---+-+-+ 3046 
Bagnall, John: Affidavit 140, British case .....-...--------- oe teceees- eneins 1265 
Baird, Prof. S. F.: Extracts from his Maine report, quoted in the British a 
Extracts from his report on the sea-fisheries of New Eng- 

land in 1871 and 1872 ...... . .. 2-00 ceceee oe cce seseee 229-B5 1 
Extract from his report on the Maine fisheries for 1874... 231 
4 Evidence on behalf of the United States ......2795-2816, 2821-2849 

Bait: Privilege of perebaecs in ports of the Dominion ; motion to exclude 
award on this behalf .... ...--. -----+ ese cee cer eee eee eee cere ee eeee _ 7,40 
The Commission excludes any award on that account......-.------- 7, 43, 44 
Scarcity of, in United States waters asserted in British case ....-..-- 99 
Value, in Newfoundland, of privilege of ebieeien asserted .....---- 105 
Denial that the privilege to purchase is contemplated in the treaty -- 123 


Right of purchasing; motion to exclude award therefor, and debate 


thereon, September 5 and 6, 1877..-----+----+ ese reece eee ece eres 1539-1588 


3468 . ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Page. 
Baker, Christopher: Affidavit 184, British case. ................---..------ 1309 
Baker, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ......-.... Reevaswewes 770-783 
Baker, T. B.: Affidavit 107, United States case ....-...-....----- -.2--.---- 3176 
Baker & Ellis: Affidavit 102, United States 0860 = o2.00.cenascescgrtew cannes 3171 
Bannerman, Sir Alexander: Extract from dispatch to Earl Grey, November 
1 ft to. 5) LAS SR ate ee OR ne ae 1468 
Dispatch to Earl Grey, February 12, 1852..---. 1470 
Return of vessels prosecuted for violation of 
convention of 1818, dated October 6, 1852... . 1473 
Barnes, Charles James: Affidavit 95, British case............ 22-20. .------- 1213 
Barrett, John Atidavit0oybritishtCasensceese spe sito ae me neo ane 1223 
Barry, James: Statements of exports of coal, salt, and lumber from Canada 
to the United States, 1867-1870 (British ev eee? Serer coe 1065-1075 
Bates, John: Affidavit 101, United States case ...J.. ....-. 4.5.2. 2-202 %--e 3170 
Bay of F undy: Light-honses i ies Berm re Aol iecad DSSS AAAA cco Cone Ee anaeHe 1088 
Bays: Line drawn from headland to headland when less than six miles 
BPaltie soon eee ease sy Seca ees emacs aoa se Saar waa Sees 121 
Bayley, R TR. Bayley & Son): Affidavit 81, United States case.........--. 3149 
Bearse, George: Affidavit 24, United Siaben Ohne 5615.5 c soe cs eee 3065 
Beaton, Joseph : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ...... 22-2... ..-.-... 1020-1021 
Beazley, Richard: Affidavit 205, United States case --.........--.....----. 3276 
Bennett, Thomas R.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ........-...-..-.. 502-552 
Bennett, Wm. George: Affidavit 61, British case ...... .-....---.------.--- 1176 
Benning, Henry: Affidavit 63, British case-..... .:...- 2-220. ences cece oe 1178 
Berry, Thomas: Affidavit 2, United States case..... .....----. 222-22 ---2-- 2980 
Berteau, Francis: Affidavit 71, British case....-< s..2<3 .=..<< --eee- = ees cee 1186 
Bethell, John :Affidavit: 275,. British case. 22 ess -ces csi ci ce cess ene csesaecce 1411 
Bigelow, James W.: Evidence in hehalf of Great Britain ........-....-.-- 673-684 
Bishop, George: Affidavit 165, British case ........-.--...----.-----.----- 1287 
Blake, Charles C.: Affidavit 121, United States case. ......---.....-..----. : 3203 
Blake, Levi (Jordan & Blake): Affidavit 113, United States case. .......... 3183 
Blatchford, Benjamin F.: Affidavit 254, United States case ............---- 3320 
Statements taken from the books of Gloucester 
AITING) srs sa eC osarieass sese ce maceee semaee 3364-3375 
Bluntschli: On the limits of maratime jurisdiction. ..............-...---- 163 
Boardman, Isaac H. (T. H. Boardman & Co.): Affidavit 79, United States 

CASO iss oas Ss saes co sweadsscse Macisisn/ seiceeslce a sestiea ea eeee wearcctiece meen 3146 
Bolman, Robert Henry: Affidavit 319, British case. .........--...----..----- 1455 
Bonaventure, Gaspé: Address of citizens of, to Commander Campbell, Octo- 

OPIS 1852 <2 See cece Uokcasca sens Soocee oe wens seceus Seen cess Woneeeeeels 1474 
Bonia, Maurice: Affidavit 7, in rebuttal, British case ...............--.---- 3447 
‘Bosdet, Peter: Affidavit: 141, British case: 22... cs. o5.0sea-s oo coe ce ean ens 1266 
Boston: Statement of exports and imports of fish and fish-oil, 1845 to 1876 . 3354, 3355 
Bouchard, Samuel: Affidavit 232, British case.... .... 1... 20-22. ences eeeee: 1364 
Boudreau, Hyppolyte: Affidavit 225, British: Cases. os. ss.cc es aceee en 1359 
Boudreau, Julien: Affidavit 230, Prisish casectces ae eee 1361 
Boudrean, Nathaniel: Affidavit 299, Bribish CasOvese-c ceo cesisce ee seeeeseeee 1360 
Bower, William Francis: Affidavit 224, Britieh GOOG 625 occcseseaiteesuceaes 1358 
Bradley, James: Evidence on behalf of the United States ................-- 1907-1925 
Brand, John, J: + Aflidavit 131; British osee 2.22 52.2 eon:cec0cecos00-eseeueen 1252 
Brett, Judge: His opinion on ‘the limits of maritime jurisdiction quoted .. eae 158 


Brief on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government in reply to the brief on behalf 
of the United States: 
I. Extent of jurisdiction seaward: 


Lora'Stowell: Gited 2-0.-- sere cossee see cet omese cee ctaee Saar 1887 

Kent's: Commentaries cites... is.ces 2. nese tascedes seta sass cevees 1887 
II. Jurisdiction over bays: 

Convention-of 1818 ciccSent ans tiie owe < Bae oa ee ae 1887 

Renunciation on part of the United: States 2... o 105, 2. oes 1883 

Construction contended for on part of Great Britain......-...-...-- 1888 

Construction contended for on part of United States........-...-.- 1883 


Views of American statesmen: Mr. Stevenson, 1841; Mr. Everett, 
1344; Mr. Webster, 1852; Mr. Rush, 1853; Senator Soulé, 1852; 


Senator Seward, 1852; Senator Tek 1852-2222 cc eeeedsase cesses 1888-1892 
Instructions from Mr. Mitchell ........-...-. .-2. +---c+ cece eeeeee- 1893 
Joint High Commission, views of on Convention of 1818...-....-.. 1893 
Mr: Fish 'to'Mr, Thornton/18710 3... 22.0.2 -s sce oo oes eee ese awceee 12893 


III. Solution of the question : 
Pothier,Obligations, cited: 2-22 --4,25-4e.02 soeaee ee oce ee tacos 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX, 


3469 


Page. 
Brief on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government in reply to the brief on behalf : 
of the United States—Continued. 
III. Solution of the question—Continnued. 
American Admiralty Reports, cited ., ... 2.2.20 20+. cece scenes edecce 1894 
Watlolnolted= o> hoon come saat ations severe he cms ecru s ces aa buna 1894 
ED WOOIGGY OHO. eciccciccns ba Gees esac esicsueae ssesietea let eee 1894 
‘Addison -on Contracts, cited cs -cicscs aanceeeccesscose seen ve cade anes 1895 
Dard: SCN DOLOURN: CINOO anny care dc kr cb a < cece a cce nee vac saveue vans 1895 
isord (Chief: Justice Tindal Citedccawecsccssicdecns-ccvcceecsiccc cuss 1895 
Tortsletie: | Temes) Cited cs cs cua sinc caeceisccacedccesss cass oswerees 1895 
Phillimore’s International Law; citOd(.si.ca cncscccceces nave aeduids 1895 
Bee’s Admiralty Reports, case of the Africane, cited .......-.....-- 1896 
Revenue act of 1799 (United States), cited ........ 22. 220 eee cece 1696 
Judiciary act of 1794 (United States), cited .................. ear 1896 
Robinson’s Reports, case of the Anna, cited... ........---. 2202 eneees 1897 
1V. The words “ bays,” “creeks,” and ‘“‘ harbors”: 
MT USLICOISLOLY CLUE.) sce wou cabicwccse xmas eneeicc eee oan ans 1897, 1898, 1899 
Chieti suscee Marshall; olted cs2c2scen ot oe cose oes eens sees eee 1897 
Pothier, Obligations; cited>=- + 2-.c. scene coccinw caeslakencadcens 1298 
MOrack ales CibLed a= comics ssice aeren secs cece twee teen uetensccwsseces 1899 
hich usieeMarsnall. ClleW-o. + ceswesteace tenes cue vest es odesiceees 1899 
Attorney-General of the United States, cited.......-.-.....-...-.-- 1899 
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, cited........ 1899 
Report of committee of Congress, November, 1807, cited....-......-- 1900 
Insinuctions rom: Mr; Madison; cltedscs<sscsecaaaee reseceen ov ecu 1900 
Sir/Leoline Jenkins, 1665; cited cc 2 3. Soe c cen cioe se eueoececmsesies 1900 
AZUMI CLOG ic sinc eeicciac seas See vena p ences bese yeaviecrslancs Saeewe 1900, 1901 
Butiendort, cited) <2. scinccaca voce paws cawasenees del swalsacinavecsue 1910 
Wattel cited i «<<... 322. cscsse danced ccsaint cesses ore ae wot 1901 
Hien UP CIbeth ss sos coe cio tw wie ways a cers = ork arate s Sawisie nave als saa Eee ceeeae 1901 
Case of the Queen vs. Keyn, cited ...... 2.6 ..-cee ccs coe Meoenine ces 1902 
Bord Chief Justice of bn pland; Cited’. 2. siiics<ciccsiswgisc ns cesivasiecss 1902 
Sinhobertenillimore;C1bed = 205. cec.-coceines senieu es cae eee s eclewseec 1903 
Casemi- the: Franconia; Cited 25.ccccns a sosesivoseeld ec cs ease aceecer 1903 
Case of the Direct United States Cable Company rs. The Anglo- 
American Telegraph Company and other respondents, 
Peel CLLCW Ao ee Manicee since cae anaes rice naesee ate ss weave een eel 1903 
- Judgment of Lord Blackburn, cited ...............2---- aucemces's 1904 
Mio Moaminic Ofsuhe-WOrd DAY. scceneces ona esmeccmsse aes ecueiccsn ste 1906 
ConGhusionesss-" a soee eines ne toch awe aces sen en anierae es anes 1906 
Brief on behalf of the United States upon the question of the extent and 
limits of the inshore fisheries and territorial waters on the Atlantic coast 
of British North America: 
Articles relating to the fisheries in the treaty cited........---.-.------ 139 
Treaty. of Paris (February 10, 1763) cited ............... ee 141 
Treaty of Ghent, December 24, 1814, referred to...........--.--+------ 142 
Gonvertion of October. 20,,1S18, Cited ok. wiSeeee esta csicecnensceesws 142 
Construction put on article 1 by the government of the Dominion, and 

view ot the American Governments. =5 2.5 s<0cs)cescieseaceec'scenecis 142 
Correspondence in September, 1824, Mr. Brent to Mr. posiagion cesieawts 143 
Correspondence between Mr. Addington and Mr. Adams cited.......... 143 
Correspondence between Mr. Bankhead and Mr. Forsyth, in 1836, re- 

HETTEMtOlees <a ciisale Sas oe ors nie doe Saints esedicamcs ecceselcdniconsessl ees 143 
Circular issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to American fishermen 

ADM NOG oe Sores eiaitais = sel ccwinisese sais pace Misia seeele sieamslee ra nn=s 143 
Letter from Lieutenant-Commander Paine to Mr. Forsyth, December 

29, 1839, cited . 0.22. 220 coe n ne cece ee toc e ne coe cece coc cee cee eec cece 144 
Correspondence between Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Stevenson, in February, 

1841, CitOd 5.6 on5 nnn .o ccc ne ce ccee acne cna senncs cose sscceccntses 144 
Mr. Stevenson to Lord Palmerston...-.. ..-. ---+ es2--0 sceeee cece: sans 144 
Seizure of the American schooner Washington, May 10, 1843, special 

message of President Tyler .---...----- -----+ +++ +028 eee ee eee eee 145 
Correspondence between Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen...--..--.---- 145-150 
Seizure of American schooner Argus, August, 1844........-.-..---..--- 148 
Mr. Everett to Mr. Calhoun, March 25, 1845 .... 22-220 ----2+ cere eeeees 150 
Mr. Everett to Mr. Buchanan, April 23, 1845. ....-...---..-- wana aan ane 151 
Mr. Crampton’s notice to Mr. Webster, July 5, 1852.----.-------------- 151 
Notice issued by the Provincial Secretary of Canada, August 23, 1852... 152 
Convention of February 8, 1853... ...-00 coos eens cee eee eee eee teeee ° 153 


3470 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Page. 
Brief on behalf of the United States upon the question of the extent and : 
limits of the inshore fisheries and territorial waters on the Atlantic coast 
of British North America—Continued. 
Decision of Mr. Joshua Bates in the case of the schooner Washington, .. 152 
The intention of the framers of the Convention of 1818...--...-.....-. 153 
Effect of the conclusion of the Reciprocity Treat......-...... -.--.... 153y 
Instructions for the guidance of naval officers on the coast of the North 
AINOTICAIN Ee LOVINCCSinc sce jee scene eer aarsae snes Sasaloan «ep oleae cao. 153 
Licensing system instituted by the Canadian Government, 1866.....-.. 154 
Correspondence between Mr. Fish and Mr. Thornton, resulting from the 
decision of the Canadian Government to issue no licenses to foreign 
HsHerMeNniNVio Usa seo eco see ene enews eee ewegeee ccse ome as ens 154 
Mr. Rogers to the Secretary of the Admiralty, April 30, 1870......----. 155 
Instructions issued by Mr. Peter Mitchell, Minister of Marine and Fish- 
ORGS 222 desc sac essen sss ccer were oames en oecen cece ence cee cians eas 155 
Lord Granville’s telegram to the Governor-General ........-..---..---- 155 
Memorandum from the Foreign Office cited ............----.----..---- 156 
““ What are bays of Her Majesty’s dominions,” authorities cited........ 156 
Case:o£ the: Franconia, November 10/0222 .42.--0<cce scces -cceccten ccs 2 156 
Sir Robert Phillimore quoted ............ Sess nistae es /aeaeiees see eee es 156 
Lindley, J:,/Qu0ved = = S222 wert ser cee cerns ene ccaircr ae eh einen 6a an em 157 
GTOVG; lr CUOLOU ees ee eae rea meee se ye late ea snes See ae slan eo mene 157 
IBROUts i QUOLGO coe ns ccccicac cen ceper ee segues sae ocenesinen eee nenses 158 
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn quoted). 2.02 ..:c2 2+ 2 335-565 cecelenss ccmsee 159-162 
Extracts from writers on International Law: 
Vattel; Liaw of Nations... -s.ccesosaree walee ess sete Sat mee cous ces 162 
Professor Blootschli,;: Law ot Nations = 22225220 sos eaaeteccs c2a5 cs 163 
Kliiber, Droit des Gens Modernes de Y Europe......-....-...-------- 163 
Ortolan, Diplomatio:de la; Mer... 22 nonc eocstsene Sane aarene so tmeccese 163 
Hautefeuille, Droit et Devoirs des Nations Neutres ...............--- 164 
Amos, his edition of Manning’s Law of Nations.........-.....--..--. 164 
Marten’s Précis du Droit des Gens Modernes de )’Europe....-....---- 165 
De'Cussy, ‘Phases et: Causes‘ Célebres!. 2 -- s.2-- 25 eee neces useeasece o- 166 
Conclusion as to the rights of the fishermen of the United States ; mani- 
feat duty of the: Commissioners =. 5354535. <0 oc a0 20i-sncu wbewes ss =e 166 
Brier, Charles H.: Evidence on behalf of the United States..........---.. 2456-2458 
Briord, Peter: Affidavit 236, British Gake--- 2.2 sce sen ee tees ces 1369 
British Subjects: Their advantages i in the United States waters considered in 
the: British. .Gase.< 2-2. scscscacccasewssass acces wrsseae eevee sscs Stes kes 97 
Brochu, Pierre: Affidavit 238, British cage... te.2<.0:. sn sice.2- soon cot ewe ose 1371 
Brown, Cyrenius: Affidavit 211, United States case... - .- 26-0 .cbin ce cece 3285 
Brown, H. A. & Co.: Affidavit 140, United States case.......-.....2-..---- 3213 
Brown, James: Affidavit 217, United States case...... ......---. ..--02 --0e 3289 
Brown, Joseph F.: Evidence on behalf of the United States...........---. 2390-2401 
Brown, William: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain .........---.-.-.---- 668-673 
Browne, Daniel M.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain..........-.-..--- 1086-1090 
Bulwer, Mr.: His note to Mr. Webster of June 24, 1851, on the Reciprocity 
Wreaby 2s. siciesoc cast soe cos coctanse kecsbbtcuw see unstecceme cee dtu ome 178 
Bunker, George: Affidavit 177, United States case..................-.---- 3250 
Bann, Edward: Affidavit 196, British case... ... 222... .ncone cece es ween cee 1323 
Burgess, Isaac: Evidence on behalf of the United States..........---...-. 2453-2456 
Burrill, E. (E. Burrill & Co.): Affidavit 78, United States case......-..---. 3145 
Busben, James: Affidavit 263, British case .........-.. 22.220. seecee coe see 1397 
sutler, George: Affidavit: 103, British case... 5 62 os.. sok cts ets oesiteweas 1221 
Cc. 
Cameron, Hugh: Affidavit 147, United States case.... 02... cceeee cee ence 3220 
Campbell, Colin Y, , commander of the Devastation: Dispatch to Sir A. Ban- 
nerman, September 16,1852. 2 ass sos acl does eotareaes eee 1472 
enore on ericroachments of United States fishermen, November 
NBS 2's Saasieccul vale Saicina treat eee ina au wee pat ice Ros Riee oe weleeee 1476 
Campbell, Dera: Affidavit 200, Weitish Gae0..o<5c:>i:0s4 enattnes<suaansee 1396 
Campbell], Joseph: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.........--....---- 331-343 
recalled: Additional evidence ...... ....2.------.--. eee 370-374 
Afidavit:15,; Rritish Cas.) (cs sevcca aypasenexnes dani 1113 
Campbell, Mr. Stewart, M. P.: His views respecting reciprocity quoted in 
the United Staten tase coves. se.ccc shoal ecae kw anes ck eae 127 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Campion, Alexander: Affidavit 204, British case.............. 2220 eece cece 
Campion, John F.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ..............-.-. 
Canada: Steady decline of American inshore fishery in the waters of the 
DORUNION OT cov. ccc concn neu nietasas das wacsesnneass oe taveabacte 
Inshore fisheries—headlands and bays. ...... caseieccgadliswneeues an 
Extent and value of sea-fisheries.............. 2c. cece cee vives 
Advantages derived by American citizens from the sea-fisheries of : 
1. Liberty of fishing in British waters............2....2c00 cece 
2. Liberty to land for purposes of drying nets, curing fish, &c. 
3. Transshipping cargoes and obtaining supplies, &c........... 
4. Formation of fishing establishments.................-.-.--- 
5. Convenience of* reciprocal free market...............- snewes 
6. Participation in improvement resulting from fishery protection 
SERVIOOLOT ATAURUR agen tices a ceenlep ietiens onerioa ocluwmnie ca 
Advantages derived by British subjects in, under the fishery con- 
WOMUION co ccnctcncu a ccces eueanu ages behenereseassen Balke Uemned 
Amount of award claimed by Great Britain in respect of......... 
Tables of fishery products of the Dominion from 1869 to 1875. .... 
— fishery products reported from the Dominion, from 1868 
to Are cancmisesiccsonssesitaatasiinepon aeaewaeuess oer aces tscee a 
Table of countries whither exported ...... .......200 cecees ceceee 
Advantages to, of a free market for fish in the United States ..... 
Dominion of, statement of fishing licenses issued to American fish- 
PE NEMO IN LOUD: sos ss aengaseaseaecaeshece cane caes aeneeees 
Seatamont:or licenses, 40., 1907 2. 5..cscnvsracaswiddemannse>sasde 

1868 


Canning, W. P.: Commanding His Majesty’s Ship Alligator. Letter to Ad- 

miral'‘Ople, November 0, lO0isccace acscus,aecsec>mveecee 
Carey, James: Affidavit 280, British case .... 2... 220. 000 - coe e cobs cone cone 
marow, Thomas: Affidavit 94, British case... 2... 2.226 --25 ccccen ceccccccce 


‘Carrigan, Christopher: Affidavit 189, United States case. ........---..-.--- 


Carrigan, Rufus: Affidavit 195, United States case................--0----- 
Carson, Robert: Affidavit 312, British case .......... 2.20. seen ewe ee ees 
Carter, Addison: Affidavit 249, United States case .............2..-------- 
Carter, Charles F.: Affidavit 243, United States case .............-.------- 
Uerer, John: Affidavit 244, British 0ase.........00- .20ces scenes cocncccece 


Case of Her Majesty’s Government: 
Introduction: 
Negotiations in 1783, Treaty of Paris ....., 00. cscs qeemeesceces cece 
Negotiations at Ghent, 1814... 1.220. cece ccccer cocncs os ccce cece cocece 
Convenvioniol 1618s Articlolciediacseacncocsstwidc us ecgcede<ese'cice< 
Negotiations for reciprocity, 1847; signature of treaty, 1854 ........-.-.-. 
mervival of oon Vention Of 1615. cls. o6sqqe soscepscce teense céncccocase 
Licensing system adopted in 1866 and abandoned in 1870....-...-.-.-- 
Joint High Commission in 1871 ...... ..2.c0 cooc cccecs cone cone seoneses 
Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington ......---.-....----++-++ 
Acts passed to enable the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington 
to be Carried into ehoct.<...-<.c.c0cce cascdsnpes sone aences pesecece aes 
Privileges conferred on the United States citizens by the Treaty of 
Washington, in addition to those conferred by the convention of 1°18. 
Part I—Canada: 


I. Extent and value of Canadian fisheries. ....-.--...-------- [sees cess 
TI. Advantages derived by United States citizens: liberty of fishing in 
Bribishi waters. .s-s5 .--cesmenosseceeers Read atecog ss a ceceeeeeeee 
Number of United States fishing vessels frequenting British waters. 
American mackerel-fishing in British waters......--...-----++---- 
Estimates of the annual catch of Americans in British waters ....-. 
American capital embarked ......-- ---- ---+ 2+ +0 eeee eee eee cree eens 
Deteriorated condition of United States fisheries...-.....---------- 
Liberty to land for the purpose of drying nets, curing fish, &¢ .. .- 
Transshipping of cargoes, and obtaining supplies, &c...--.- soeees 
Formation of fishing establishments..... dMavadésoansceaansa Socece 
Convenience of reciprocal free market ...-..------------ seeeteeeee 
Participation in improvements resulting from the fisheries protec- 
tion service in Canada. ........--2-.----+ ---0------ Joe teeene sees 

III. Advantages derived by British subjects: liberty of fishing in United 
States waters and other privileges connected therewith....-.-..- 
Professor Baird’s report ........-.-----+ seeeee cee nee cere eee ne anne 


Extent of concession embodied in the Reciprocity Treaty.......--- 


87 


206-212 
213-217 


1457 
1414 
1212 
3260 
3965 
1448 
3316 


REESSSSERE BS B 


R 


RES 


3472 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Case of Her Majesty’s Government—Continued. 
Part I.—Canada—Continued. 
The question of bait...-.. .-2--- .--- wee ene 222 nee e cee eee coon eee 
The menhaden industry in the United States ..-..... .--...------- 
Customs remission by United States in favor of Canada........--. 
Conclusion: Amount of compensation claimed in respect of the Do- 
minion:of ;Canada).<-.< 7. ca. «bende ee eed ate esos ens seen ons hese 
Part I].—Newfoundland : 

J. Introduction and description of Newfoundland fisheries........... 
Value of the Newfoundland fisheries -... ..-. -....----. ---- 2 e-ee- 
Importance of baif..... ...- ssecendsindsGueieciceduapes.cocces secces 

II. Advantages derived by United States citizens: the entire freedom 
of ‘the inshore @miaes u 22~ cu pockipointe petirs aceoe es ace ool set we ok 
Value of the concession to procure bait and supplies, transship, &c. 
The advantage of a free market for fish and fish-oil in Newfound- 
land: benefits conferred on United States fishermen by the market 
opened to them for the sale of small fish, hitherto thrown away.- 

III. Advantages derived by British subjects: valueless character of the 
concession to fish in United States coastal waters north of the 39th 
parallel G23. see bos ese ance sett oe eres seis ssn Skee eas 
Remission of the duty on fish and fish-oil a reciprocal privilege - -- 
Conclusion.—Amount of compensation claimed in respect of the colony 
of Newioup@land:: 2, ..3.~..-- spe adee nel mr th pes saeiae-sasiense ness 
Summary.—Total amount of compensation claimed by Her Majesty’s 
Government on behalf of Canada and Newfoundland, collectively .... 
Annex A.—Aggregate quantities and values of the produce of Canadian 
fisheries, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Prince Edward 

Island 5 -/25 ccs 5-3 5555055 5%) 5 - bald Sagi eee SOMERS cenebcaleh akc 

Annex B.—Quantities and values of articles exported from ports be- 
tween Rameau Islands to Cape Race, and thence north to Twillingate, 
inclusive, 1868 to 1874.2... 1. .-< spp ad Ses - ns Ue bs deeb oteene - 

Annex C.—Census returns, not reprinted ....-./:-.2--. s--2<- 2-2 eee - 

Annex D.—Quantities and values of articles exported from ports in 

Newfoundland, from Rameau Islands east to Cape Race, thence north 

to Tilt: Cove, 1868 to 1874... -.- =, cosets nq th cb adwo Specs egacnns 

Cashin, Richard: Affidavit 79, British case........-...---------+--------- 


See we eee wee ee ee ee eee tee eee tee wee eee 


Central Wharf Company, of Wellficet, Mass.: Affidavit 94, United States case - 
Champion, Benjamin: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain...............- 
Champion, Jolin: Affidavit, British Cas6.2. 2-2. scsesdcateenni aes pecs 
Champion, William: Affidavit 12, British case..........-. ...-.- -s-200 o-e 
Charlotte Town, Royal Gazette of: Extract from, June 26, 1838........---. 
vice-admiralty court of: Return.of American vessels pros- 
ecuted for violation of Convention of 1818; dated Octo- 
B6nG, 1802 (roe iecec seco cw pone see Gh eee eens sit rnes 
Chase, E. H.: Affidavit 120, United States cage ..-..-/-.<+-s-c<qsa-oencacces 
Chase, M. M. (Chase & Cushing): Affidavit 122, United States case......-- 
Chase, Stephen B.: Affidavit 11, United States case...............---..- ane 
Chase, W. H. (Thomas, Chase & Co. ): Affidavit 119, United States case.... 
Cheney, 8S. F.: Evidence on behalf of the United States Cerin pre ie ae ia 
Chivarie, Capt. Simon: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain......-....-.- =e: 
Chiverie,Alex,: Affidavit 16, British case. oe. +<e-55, os Ceaueeescase ease 
Chouinard, Isaac: Affidavit 239, British case.....--.-..----.-----+---e eee 


Churchill, Howard M.: Evidence on bebalf of the United States.......--.- 
Clark, George O.: Evidence on behalf of the United States.......--..---+. 
Clark, George, j jr. (Clark & Somes): Affidavit 74, United States case-..---. 
Coas, Henry G.: Affidavit 246, United States 6986......,.ccneneprececssues- 
Cobb, Henry A.: Affidavit 210, United ‘States Gases ac-cosccaps sane np ecewees 
Cochrane, Commander, of Her Majesty’s ship Sappho: Extract from dispatch 
of, to Vice-Admiral Seymour, October 3, 1851...--. 

React t from report to Vice-Admiral Fanshawe, June 

Cockburn, Chief Justice, opinion of, on question of headlands, bays, and 
marine limits 


Cod fishery: Exclusively carried on in the open sea.......--..--..-++----- 
OPNGWIOURGIAUO + +o 50>555 ooccce oc ee tse acco ance ay soeek riaaee 
Coggins, Livingston: Affidavit 2€9, British case....... ida dawcne ss sina wa Salas 


97, 106 


108 
108 


109-112 © 


113 


114-116 
1193 


3152 
3162 — 
1023-1025 


1105 
1108 


1473 
3191 
3193 


1463 


P< a 


Cook, Thomas C.: Affidavit 198, British case.............----. 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Cogswell, William: Affidavit 230, United States case 
Cohoon, Solomon: Affidavit 173, United States case. 
Collas, Adolphus E.: Affidavit 173, Britiah GG005 .cecedcckeas anedsa catheane 
Collins, Joseph W.: Affidavit 264, United States CORE Wi Jac cece edes cera SP 
Collins, William: Affidavit 68, BypmNGekeo oe sacs acy ce ee oe 
Colson, James A.: Atfidavit 245, United States case. .....2 secccecccccc cece 
Commercial advantages to the "United States not within the scope of the 
treaty: Motion of the United States counsel and 

Agent asking the Commission to rule their exclu- 

SION sucsraleount ake es sean cs-sbuewdnneaunes eens 

The motion of the United States granted by the 

Commission unanimonsly .......... 2.2222 ceeeee 

Commercial Wharf Company of Welltleet, Mass.: Affidavit 95, United States 
OBS) <0 5.05 oc no mececnubldesnivssubaxaaee Jeceu sss 

Condon, Thomas: Aftidavit 248, British case ..... Pipedelbalscselinee abcicaan 
Conley, Johu: Affidavit 9, United States case. .... 1... 20 cone cece cocc sees 
Conley, John, jr.: Evidence on behalf of the United States 
Conrad, George: Aftidavit 86, British case .. 
roy, paulo: AMdavit 6, British O80... se.<eveve seacarusevse cued cdenste 
‘Conway, Edward A.: Affidavit 221, British case ...................0-- o6ae 
Conwell, David: Affidavit 93, United States case ..... 
Cook, Benjamin F.: Aftidavit 253, United States case .. ...........-.--.- 
Evidence on behalf of the United States.............- 

Cook, E. P. (E. P. & E. K. Cook: Affidavit 89, United States case. 
Cook, Geomtey+-ARidsvit 87) Dritiah C680. i. .66 wan sa cccene cavdescssececa 
Cook, Henry: Evidence on behalf of the United States .............. 
Cook, H. & 8S. & Co.: Affidavit 85, United States case - ...... .....- 202. woes 


ee ee ees 
ee 2 ee 


Affidavit 174, United States case ............. ee eeuay 
Cook, William O.: Evidence on behalf of the United States............... 


PCormier, Francis: Affidavit 226, British case... .. 002. ccna e co ccce cocce Bete 


Cormier, Gabriel: Affidavit 220, British case. ... 2... 22. cone ence cecce ence 
AMMA VItie2G, BTItISN GASO-. 2s cc.cces awone becuse acen mess 

Coughlan, Charles: Affidavits of, concerning encroachments of United States 
BNGFINCH, MANUAL. 24,1 Gace cost casa ciceey ceccwsccneanss coscawnseasione 
Counsel for Great Britain before the Commission: Nomination of Messrs. 
Doutre, Thomson, Whiteway, Davies, and Weatherbe..-......... 

for the United States before the Commission: Nomination of Messrs. 


LUPGSr OL ANCE OENS secon ea aot ea cae ae ore eeict ss skeen searese «= 
speeches of (see Dana, Doutre, Foster, Thomson, Trescot, Weath- 
ELE ADU? WV DILOW AY) .cco sietioero costes salsa asic cca cies coe ebniss epics 


Cousins, VameseW.: Amaavit, 317; British: Cae: 2.6 cave c-cs cxcescanleocscnls 
Couture, Baptiste: Affidavit 126, DEAN ORNs <5 sous cco te wash bose eue 
Couture, Joseph: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ......-....+-++-0--- 
Covey, Alonzo: Afiidavit 27 3; UDI ted StAtes CARO. oc cece oc ssicmesse ceases 
Crane, L. G.: Affidavit 4, Tinted Biatab CAA once. csc feclvas cscakaoreseee 
Creed, Charles: Evidence on behalf’ Of Great: Britain. <c.ccecieosciccce ceciece 
Crichton, William: Affidavit 147, British case .......... 2.2.0 seceee ceceee 
Crispo, Michael: Affidavit 47, | TEETER ONG ae oh ao te ge i 

Affidavit 164, United s States Case... --s csescs consesscueee 
-Critchet, George: Affidavit 188, United States case........2-.----+eeeee =F. 
Crittenden, E. Aug.: Affidavit 155, United States case...... ..20+ cecceees 
Crittenden, Isaiah: Affidavit 154, United States case........sce. cece sceece 
Crocker & Atwood: Affidavit 88, United States case ...-....---. Mea ceecaee 
Crowell, Eleazer: Affidavit 229, British case..... Givacas dancin Sadvescucaes 
Crowell, Elisha: Affidavit 18, United States case......-2-. -cee--+--ceeeees 
Cunningham, John C.: Evidence on bebalf of Great Britain........-....-. 
Cunningham, Sylvester (Cunningham & Thompson): Affidavit 53 , United 


Stated CASH i 32 scc-s oc oe as seemcieawales sees wccece enw eeleccsiawes 
“Currie, D.: Report on the island-caught fish of Prince Edward Island, 1850- 


ore esc oc cmeteacisns 5s cassiiose ener cantites se<idanagieiseeuasaas 

Carrie, James: Evidence on behalf of the United Baton ccs -ci cs eacccs ce 
PCarrie, Robert: Affidavit 277, British case. .........scece eeeeee cecees coee 
Currier, Charles O.: Attidavit 22, United States NE A aii ET i GO oN 
Curzon, John: Affidavit 219, United States case. ....-. 0.2. +--22eeeeeee eee 
Cashing, Emory (Chase & Cushing): Affidavit 122, United States case .... 
“Cutler, R. M.: Affidavit of, presented to assembly of Nova Scotia March 23, 
Diet en ook tence an canas nn Mess ssa cuheee he ewenensaasnn sehen 
‘Cutts, R. D.: Report to Mr. Seward on the fisheries, January 7, 1569 (ex- 
Be tracts from)........200. ..-c0s venee pebans ane s)sepaseen Baan 68a scons sans 


218 F 


7,40 
7,43, 44 


2252-2262 
3157 

1204 
2066-2074 
3153 

1326 

3247 
2711-2714 
1359 

1354 

1360 


1462, 1463 
14 


1025-1036 
3122 


233-237 
2482-2493 
1412 

3150 

3291 

3193 


1461 
219 


3474 : ALPHABETICAL INDEX. + 
D. 
; Page, - 
Dalhonsie, Earl of: Extract from his dispatch to Lord Bathurst, June 8, 1827. 1457 


Dana, Richard H.: Motion in behalf of the United States respecting the 
right of final reply, and the debate thereon, August 


Pie yy Gee ene Rear” SAPs 1521-1538 
Arguments in favor of the right of final reply.......... 1526-1532. 
Arguments against awards for right of purchasing bait 
and transshipment, September 5 and 6, 1877. ........ 1570, 1580 
Closing argument on behalf of the United States, No- 
svember 9 and 10° 1677.5 22 - wctenseceeauisec ores cee 1652-1705 
Daniels, Timothy A.: Evidence on behalf of the United States :........... 2131-2132 - 
Davidson, James H.: Affidavit 14, British case.... ........-....---2.------ 1111 
Davidson, Sebastian: Affidavit 11, British case............--- Westeoaweets= 1107}. 
Davis, William: Evidence on behalf of the United States..........--..... 2710 
Deagle, Peter: Affidavit 26, British case... ...- 22. ----2. coon ne --- 22 e ce ce ee 1125 
Deagle, Robert: Affidavit 279, British case......--.--. .--20. ----2- --0 eee ee 1413 
De Cussy on the limits of maritime jurisdiction ....-.-....-.-.....--..--- 166 
Delfosse, Mr., chosen to preside over the labors of the Commission-........ 12 
Deneff, Joseph P.: Affidavit 52, British case...... 2.22. .2eeee --- 220 ce ceee 1166 
Dennis (George Dennis & Co.): Affidavit 52, United States case .......... 3116 
Dennis, John G.: Affidavit 220, United States case.........--.--.-....---- 3291 
(Dennis & Ayre): Affidavit 59, United States case -...... 3124 
Denton, Charles W.: Affidavit 292, British case...... ... ..scs0 cesene cacees 1423 
Denton, Joseph E.: Affidavit 293, British case ..........-. 22-2. +--+ sees 1424 
Derby, E.H.: Report to Mr.Seward on the fisheries, January, 1867 (ex- hy 
tracts:froui) ios 5.252sc.5,-5 seas cota. Moses ee See Ie AR ee ee 189. 
Devot, Daniel : Affidavit 216, British case -... ..-... 0.2.20 2 cee cee ee cone 1348 
Dickey, William A.: Evidence on behalf of the United States ........-... 3411, 2418 
Diggdon, Philip: Affidavit 155, British case -.....5...-... 0-2-2022 0--e se 1276 
Dillon, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.........--.....-..--.- 937, 942 
Doane, Valentine: Affidavit 106, United States case..............-..----.- 3175 
Doane, V., jr.,& Co: Affidavit 108, United States case.:.......2-.---..--.- 3177 
Dobson, Joseph:. Affidavit 116, British case... :----< 202 <scdcssswone cunee 1235, 
Documents filed in support of British case, list of ..-....-..-.--...2-.--.-- 117,189 


Doutre, Joseph: Arguments against the right of final reply -...-.. ....1533, 1536, 1537 
Argument in favor of awards for right of purchasing bait 


and transshipment, September 5 and 6, 1877. ...-......-. 1557 
Final argument on behalf of Great Britain, November 16 ay 
an 1, ASG) 225 osc son aw sasas coeescees sadesaee wacere 1724-1776 — 
Doviant, Dominick: Affidavit 311, British ease 4... 2. soc se oc ccs cee tees 1447 
Doyle, Charles: Affidavit 184, United States case ........-........... scabs 3255 
Doyle, Placide::- Affidavit 227, British case <2... s22.2.s2cccccdsalghac.cese cece 1359, 
Dumaresq, George: Affidavit 203, British case -....---..--2. .---20 eee eee ee 1332 
Dunn, Charles W.: Affidavit 30, British case....-........--.. sicecvos siwsce 1130 


Duties on fish and fish-oil in the United States: Advantages to the Domin- 
ion by reason of their re- 
MHGSION: .2- 5 becctuceces 9, 122 
Opinions of prominent Can- 
adian statesmen as to the 
valueofsuch remission... 131-135 


Dyer, Charles A.: Affidavit 115, United States case .... 2.22. .--. 2-2 neces 3185 
Dyer, E. M. (Union Wharf Company): Affidavit 83, United States case .... 3151 
E. 

Eakins, Robert S., jr.: Affidavit 301, British case... ... 2.2... 2-22 eeceee cece 1431 
Eaton, William: Affidavit 3, United States case ...... 1... ceccce cece wnces ‘ 2984 
Eisenhauer, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............-....- 827-838 
Eldridge, Levi: Affidavit 103, United States case.............------ aieeuees 3172 
Elwell, William : Affidavit 260 A, United States case............----.- ee 3326 
Embree, Chandler: Affidavit 172, United States case..... ite do bon pate eaes 3245 
Embree, William: Affidavit 167, United States case.... .......-----.------ 3240 


Encroachments (alleged) of United States fishermen in British North 
American waters since the conclusion of the convention of 1818. Docu- 
inents and correspondence filed in behalf of Great Britain: 


1. Earl Dalhousie to Earl Bathurst, Quebec, June 9, 1827 (extract).....- 1457 
2. Captain Canning, of Her Majesty’s ship Alligator, to Rear-Admiral 
Ogle, lalifax, November'9, 1027.4.< 52.0.0 «c+ «aye. ean scassle abet 1457 


t —e 
a 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Eneroachments (alleged) of United States fishermen in British North 
American waters.since the conclusion of the convention of L818. Docu- 
ments and correspondence filed in behalf of Great Britain—Continned. 

3. Address to the King from the council and assembly of Nova Scotia, 


WOMTUOTU: C4, LMMOeu casio cc ant coc atecics sab Bea Seas e ee ET a dcue ston 

4, Address to the Queen from the council and assembly of Nova Scotia, 
DOES A ey LOO Shostanene poabas vabsae nade cévslenccenicassakeea Caen 
5. Proceedings of the assembly of Nova Scotia; affidavit of R. M. Cutler, 
DOWD 2g Ooch on S228 02a < ce doenbn kes ssccanckus coseeduwmencaiasc 

6. Lieutenant-Governor Harvey to Major-General Sir Colin Campbell, 
Fredericton, January 27, 1838, with two inclosures.......... 22.2... 

(1). Affidavit of Duncan Hay and Charles Coughlan ......... ewsene ° 
$e).Second alidavit of the Game. ..<csessee cone scecncccccss ccuvvces 

7. Extract from the Royal Gazette, Charlottetown, June 26, I838....-.. 

‘ 8. Lieutenant-Governor Harvey to Lord Glenelg, Fredericton, March 19, 
aay Sees a report of the assembly of New Brunswick, March 

SLO GD airs cia sicicic se a wisiaicisinis colt aacaten wee me Senicse one ac cee ced nlsmes 

' 9. Petition to the Queen, from the council and assembly of Prince Ed- 
ward.telrand,, March: 24). 1843) 5. -- 5... csc sues ce seumeetiaawececetrs ° 

10. Commander Cochrane, of the Sappho, to Vice-Admiral Seymour, Hali- 
fax, October 3, 1851 (extract) ........ Bees aysae on ie Son sics enna peed 

11. Sir A. Bannerman to Earl Gray, Prince Edward Island, November 15, 
LOGIOXEPAOD) ie eaten a56n es avaw enivdscaaveen duck eevaee Sowiskntaaeienws 

12. Address to the Queen, from the council and assembly of Prince Ed- 
wurd-ieland; February 9,.1852 22 26 ssscsecccsctncssicveces ossececcee 
' 13. Sir A. Bannerman to Earl Grey, February 12, 1852 ..... dusewetss exboe 
14. eee H. McKay to the Hon. J. Warburton, Princetown, July 2, 

- 15. Court of vice-admiralty at Halifax; return of American vessels seized 
for violation of the convention of 1818, dated July 30, 1852........ 

16. Commander Campbell, of the Devastation, to Sir A. Bannerman, Char- 
lobtetOown moptomiber! Os 182i nn. a tercuce nou caan'as/susaclesieaa a 


17. Court of vice-admiralty, Charlottetown; return of American vessels 
prosecuted for violation of convention of 1818, dated October 6, 


Oe ice SIS REC REE SEC DENO GAR Cen mn merit ies Eero rere yr ri 

18. Vice-Admiral Seymour to the secretary of the admiralty, Halifax, 
@MoteberscU A S528 as aea nls eat eitas Sess oe nice os cleeeies ae smreciamine 

_ 19. Address of citizens of Bonaventure, Gaspé, to Commander Campbell, 
q WMdteper 1821852 = co. co ieee seaarsseweaies's ighionted eeas aiiewuaeeaes 
20. Vice-Admiral Seymour to the secretary of the admiralty, Bermuda, 
November 18, 1852, with two inclosures. .... .-.. 222-2000 ee cece 

(1). Report of Commander Campbell, of Her Majesty’s ship Devasta- 

tion, Halifax, November 10, 1852........-.. Reena sineanles snmsavioe en 


(2). Abstract of the state of papers of British vessels at Port Hood.. 

21. Vice-admiralty court of New Brunswick; list of vessels prosecuted 
for infraction of convention of 1818, St. John, October 11, 1852 .... 

_ 22. Address to the Queen from the council and assembly of New Brunswick, 


- 24. Address to the Queen from the representatives of Nova Scotia, March 
BAI SG Soe A eee cacioseae nia cen cowie scaseSalmslap calesey.ssasssinaise ee 

25. Address to the Queen from the council of Nova Scotia, April 4, 1853. 
26. Address to the Queen from citizens of St. John, New Brunswick, 


’ January, 1853 ...2 200 ce cece seen es conn sec cee coce cece se ot ocetagee 

_ 27. Memorial to the Queen from citizens of Northumberland Younty, New 

os... Brunswick, January 5, 1853 ......-.--- ste ceee cece eee neces cerns 

_ 28. B. H. Norton, United States Consul at Pictou, to Sir A. Bannerman, 

Ps October 28, 1852 ...- 22. een e concen eee cent tenner eee ee cone ee tees 

29. St. Johns’ Chamber of Commerce to Hon. James Crowdy on the sub- 
ject of reciprocity, June 25, 1853.....------ 


a 
% > = 


30, Address to the Queen from the commons of Newfoundland, April 23, 


Witmle se Mele aic wn a a mine C. san Oe 6a aan 6:6 OS SE 'EAE DAE CS ORATOR SE SS SE Sm 


219, 1865 2... oe nnn oc cee cone coe cone conn s cc cece eens sans cecccs cone 
33. Vice-Admiral Wellesley to the secretary of the admiralty, Bermuda, 


q November 18, 1869 ......-.200eeee eee eeeee Bt TR ee 


3476 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Page. 
Encroachments (alleged) of United States fishermen in British North ae 
American waters since the conclusion of the convention of 1818. Docu- 
ments and correspondence filed in bebalf of Great Britain—Continued. 
34. Report from Commander Cochrane to Vice-Admiral Fanshawe, June 18, 
1870 (extract). ..---- 02. 2o0 soon n ce wene ence cone cwecen ssnses ceeceee- 1494 
35. Judge Jackson, United States Consul at Halifax, to Vice-Admiral 
We llesley, August SO 1870 esc scme ats ceces sein Conc co cese sees 1494 
36. Vice- Admiral Wellesley to United States Consul Jackson, Halifax, 
Angus ol Sines case on nae ewee nee atuwenmatey osteo on sai soe ss 1494 
37. United States Consul Jackson to Vice-Admiral Wellesley, Halifax, Sep- 
tember 1; 181025 ca sc -ccc one cen cebu se caeedss tiie time ss cscs 1494 
38. Vice-Admiral Wellesley to United States Consul Jackson, Halifax, Sep- 
tember 3,1870. Duties enjoined on the commanders of Her Majesty’s 
SHIpiG ooo vacoms seme weston ceeut@netepmsed deedbbenssh~ sav c-sub ae 1495 
39. Report from Captain Hardinge, of the Valorous, to Vice-Admiral 
Wellesley, Halifax, September 17,1870... =. ......2s.-:0cnsje- cnt osecce 1496 
40. Captain Phillamore to Vice-Admiral Fanshawe, Halifax, November 15, 
1870:(extract)i2- <0... ose s- nous tose ns esetesce bebe n ea eeiceoe <se-ss 1497 
41. Commander Knowles, of the Lapwing, to Vice-Admiral Fanshawe, 
Novembet 71870222... 2.25.2 cc8-ac ut ieee noo Seen bls oa aoe 1493 
42, Revised schedule of vessels seized during 1870 for violations of fishery 
and revenue laws. Ottawa, December 14, 1870.......-..........-. 1500 
43. List of fishing vessels boarded by Her Majesty’ s ship Plover between 
July 20 and Angust: 21, 1870... 2. tseu ccs ols So cts wtoece case 1501 
44. List of foreign vessels boarded within three miles of land on the coast 
of Prince Edward Island during the fishing season of 1872-.-........ 1504 
45. List of United States fishing vessels in the waters of Prince Edward 
Island distinguished, but not boarded, by Her Majesty’s ships in 1872. 1508 
England, Thomas: Affidavit 194, United States case. ............---. 2.20. 3264 
England, William: Affidavit 190, United States case.............--.------ 3261 
Evans, John: Affidavit 55, British case... sossd5i00- ke Jamgeiisso> os scax 1169 
Everett, Edward: Correspondence with Lord Aberdeen in 1843~44 on the 
inshore fisheries=....20-< cass cian sees Vaeueuesese cieee ie dee aa Eee 145-149 
Evidence. (See witnesses, affidavits, &c.) 
Evitt, John S.: Evidence on behalf of the United States ........- ees 2241-2252 
F. 
Falt, Walter M.: Affidavit 26, ‘United States cade-... -. 0 22-2. 0.2255 ev ener 3073 
Evidence on behalf of the United States. ..-..-.-....--.. 2871-2879 
(Leighton & Co.): Affidavit 71, United States case. .....-. 3137 
Farmer, Samuel M.: Affidavit 271, United States case. ................---- 3339 
Fauve), John 3: :: Afidavit i7t, Brivign Gane. occc6 cece tea osonece econ sees E 1294 
Ferguson, John: Affidavit 119, British case.............---..---- slaae eines 1238 
Ferguson, Peter: Affidavit 183, British case. ........-. ..---- eooeeeee vases Se 1308 
Fernald, D. L. (J. W. Sawyer & Co.): Affidavit 118, United States case.... 3189 
Ferris, Simon: Affidavit 146, British case.............2-- PRES ee ae te ie 1270 
Fiander, Samael: Affidavit 164, British case... . 2.2... 22. cece ee enone nce 1286 
Fiander, Stephen: Affidavit 4, in rebuttal, British case................--.. 3446 
Fish, Mr.: Correspondence with Sir E. Thornton in 13870 relative to Cana- 
dian fishing MCONSES. cece e oe Skee ect seta eee eee tan iee owe emecueas 154,155 
Fisher, Wilford J.: Evidence on behalf of the United BtRbed eo asccan sens 2506-2527 
¥ isheries, inshore: Of Canada; question of the extent of. The Everett- 
Aberdeen correspondence, 14546 RoScodieeuctiwce Ce eeese wees Ueda 139 
Fishery. Comipission; thé: Organization Ol. 222 ccccacies coeeeressccaiecesiecss 127 
Rules of procedure adopted. ............-....--- 13 
Modification of procedure... ..-<. 4-5 q-s0.ess-< 35, 36 
Fitch, James: Affidavit 138, United States case. -..... .o-c0< cavcee coeeases 321 
Fitzgerald, William: Affidavit 212, United States case. ....-. Wena naetae 3256 
Flynn, Edmund: Affidavit 201, British case. ..........2.----- Face tana gta nae 1329. 
Flynn, James: Affidavit 200, Weitiah alles ccs iste ee ee aes 1328 
FE. lynn, Wm.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.......-.-0--scce+ seceee 787-791 
Foley, Michael: Affidavit OE Been CAGG oes c cn co acca aoase ces cece 1123 
Ford, Mr. Francis Clare: Admitted as British agent before the Commission. 124 
Fortin, Pierre: Extract from report. of, for 1865... ... cece ccecce eocces.cese 218 
Evidence on behalf of Great Britain .........--.----eeeees 882-901 
Fortune, Lawrence: Affidavit 93, British case. ..- 0.6 1... coos cen bree vocwee 1210 
Foster, Mr. Dwight: Agent of the United States. “Letter to Mr. Evarts 
Foporting AWG: >. ss. sc ccesekcescieee cee sesesoweue 6 


4 
4 
pce? 


— _ rr, ‘ dee Wine 
a OE ae LES ape iw 


eee. 
i 
a 


fr 


sab he 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. . 3477 

Foster, Mr. Dwight: Admitted as agent of the United States befv re the Com- — 
mission.......-. pelexecapuabecav eben diawauc ok pices a 12 

His answer in behalf of the United States............ 119-137 


Remarks on the right of final reply, August 28, 1877.. 1522, 1532 
Motion to exclude purchase of bait and transshipment 
of cargoes as bases of awards, and the debate thereon, 
September 5 and 6, 1877. ..........2. eeccecccseccese 1539-1588 
Closing argument on behalf of the United States, No- 


VOMVEUO ANG Gil dissesucscuvanencacovaa ware saee 1588-1629 
penwer, James P.: Affidavit 297, British case <<... 2... caccs coowoccesccocs 1427 
Fournier, Charles: Affidavit 190, British case. ...... 2... .cccee cece cocceecs 1316 
Fournier, Messie: Affidavit-242, British case...... 0.22... cc eece cece cece 1377 
Fox, John J.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.................-. Westese 462-488 
Fox, Thomas Edward: Affidavit 149, United States case...........2-.-.... 3223 
semper, canes Amidavit LLG, British G8s0: <.6<.jscces ccs sccuededaicece vere 1237 
Fraser, James O.: Affidavit 274, and statement of cost of maintaining New- 
foundland light-houses, British case ................26 wees ene wie 1410 
Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.................... AT5—596 
Freeman, Francis M.: Evidence on behalf of the United States............ 2049-2066 
Affidavit 86, United States case......... 00.220 wee e cone 3154 
Freeman, Jesse H., (agent Mercantile Whart Company of Wellfleet): Affi- 
Gavit VOo United States:casecc of 2s 2c:.cb.c.ccua cceaecisacea ssw sees 3165 
Freeman, Nathan D.: Evidence on behalf of the United States............ 2033-2087 
(Freeman & Hilliard): Affidavit 87, United States case.. 3155 
Sener Wiis: Ain AVite 14, British-CA8O1<c<c<iesescacclsagsdesss coos sexe 1276 
French, Eliphalet W.: Evidence on behalf of the United States...... eee 2696-2710 
Friend, Frank W., and Sidney, (Sidney Friend & Bro.): Affidavit 21, United 
BALCH OBNDi. case ent wick eset isceabiemaes ue cwrovare ssp ene suamabag 3051 
Friend, George: Evidence on behalf of the United States.................. 2153-2148 
(George Friend & Co.): Affidavit 28, United States case.. 3081 
’ Friend, Joseph: Affidavit 55, United States case...... ...... .. eee see eee-e 3119 
Friend, Sidney, (Sidney Friend & Co.): Affidavit 69, United States case... 3135 
Prye, James: Affidavit 110, United States case.... 2... ....0. 220 ee ene eee 3179 
Fandy, Bay of: Question of maritime jurisdiction in, Historical review of.. 143-151 
G. 
Gale, John H.: Evidence cn behalf of the United States.........22....-.-- 2231-2241 
mabant, Meddio: Affidayit.S, British CAS, <..5:0..5...<s000 s-+s6sees scenes 1102-1104 
Galt, Sir Alexander T.: Decision on question of excluding awards for right 
to purchase bait and transship, September 6, 1877......---..----+---++++ 1585-1588 
Gardiner, John P.: Affidavit 264, British case ...........2c-20 ceeece--eeee 1398 
Gardner, Enos: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............----..--. 912-914 
Seasdner, Pardon: Affidavit 150, British case... ... cccces 1... ccccce cons cece 1273 
Gardner, Sidney: Evidence on behalf of the United States ..........-..-.. 2312-2316 
Gardner, William Edw.: Affidavit 128, British case ........-.--.+.-------- 1243 
Gandet, Agno J.: Affidavit 22, British case .... 2.220 - 2+. ence cone cones cece 1121 
Gaal, Charles: Affidavit 206, British case... 2... 2... cece cen nne cocene-secees 1336 
Gavey, Abraham: Affidavit 182, British case..-.....---..---2.eeeeee eee eee 1307 
Gerring, Frederick: Affidavit 29, United States case .....-....-.++---- +--+ 3085 
Getson, Daniel: Affidavit 88, British case.........--.---220 ---eee eee eee 1206 
Getson, James: Affidavit 137, British case........- 2. een ee eee e ee cone eens 1262 
Gillies, Alexander: Affidavit 265, British case...-...----.-------+----+-- te 1398 
Gillies, Angus: Affidavit 273, British case ..-....-0. ----6----0 ee2ee+ ceeeee 1409 
Gillis, James: Affidavit 166, United States case..-.... \clsGk se Meaaenee sae bee's 3239 
Gilman, Alphonso: Affidavit 35, British case...... .--.-.------ +--+ --2++-- 1139 
Giovanninni, Henry: Affidavit 59, British case.........-----++---+--+++++- 1175 
_ Girrois, James L: Affidavit 179, United States case.........--- owas sions 3252 
_ Glazebrook, John: Affidavit 206, United States case........-+-+ -++--+-+++- 3278 
Glenn, John: Affidavit 265, United States case.......-.--4 .-eeee eee -e eee 3332 
Gloucester, Mass.: Cod and mackerel fleet of...-..---.+---2+----0+ eeeeee> : 80 
i: Statistics of population and valuation of ......-..+------ 2592-2594 
Statements taken from the books of fishing firms....... 3364-3375 
Gloucester Mutual Fishing Insurance Company: Policy of..-.------------- 3449 
By-laws of, for 1576-1877... 3452 
- Golt, Addison, jr. (Smith & Golt): Affidavit 73, United States case ....... 3 3139 
Goode, George Brown: Statistics of the fisheries of the North Atlantic 
NN as a Salan ws cinkea dawns Le Sahu ius SReKee pA RE DECREASE SES NERS see 3360-3364 
_ Goodwin, Daniel: Affidavit 113, British case.......- LaSank eet wees aaekenes 1232 


3478 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Goodwin, A. E.: Affidavit 251, United States case.....-..---.-----..+----- 3318 
Googins, Edward A.: Evidence on behalf of the United States...........-- 2448-2453 
Gorman, John E.: Affidavit 38, United States case .....----.-.---.- oe ae 3099 
Grady, Thomas: Affidavit 36, United States case.......--..----.---------- 3097 
Graham. James W.: Evidence on behalf of the United States.........--.-- 2095-2114 
Graham, John: Affidavit 32, British casd,:>> =. ...- 2-2. 222255 eee as eee 1134 


Grant, Angus: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain.........-.....--..--.- 597-614 — 


Grant, John: Affidavit 186, United States case ...-.~ .-- =. eo cece ee e-e o--- _ 3256 
Gray, Elvarado: Evidence on behalf of the United States...-..........-... 2418-2432 


: wee 


Great Britain: Case of.......--..---- CER ERR R it Ras” 3k 77-117 & 


Greenleaf, William: Affidavit 225, United States case............--....--.. 3295 
Grenier, Grégoire: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain .-......--....---.- 411-417 
Griffin, Levi: Affidavit 209, United States case..-..:.....----- 02-2 +. eo ecee 3283 
Groser:. Jacob; -Affidavitiy, British ease. < cre cose sac kcc cece cass. eeapees 1198 
Gross, B. O. (Union Wharf Company): Affidavit 83, United States case....- 3151 


Grouchy, David: Affidavit 143, British case ......--...----.-------eee-e es 1267 


Grouchy, Philip: Atida vit 96;7oritish C800-<--- 40a. cc ccsc eae cc ciesecss s- 1214 
Grove, Judge: His opinion on the limits of maritime jurisdiction quoted... 157 
Gruchy (Grouchy), David: Affidavit 185, United States case......-...-.-. z 3236 


Hackett; hdward= Affidavit 18 (British eae6. 222.25 2522552255 ono p acer cw ees 
Haddon, William : Affidavit 243, British case... 2... --J5-~ s-npess--+-5 soso 
Hadley, James B.: Affidavit -46, British case. -~ 2.5 sass 26 Ss.nesesep ssecess 
Halifax, vice admiralty court: Return of American vessels seized for viola- 

tion of convention of 1818, dated July 30, 1852...-.....--.....-. siesiages 
Halifax : Correspondence in 1870, between United States Consul Jackson and 

Vice-Admiral Wellesley ......--- fb orion sae vata nseeen meme stews OC ole sees 
Hajj, Edward G.: Affidavit 127, British case. ....-.-.--...-..s ules aesicese 
Hall, Isaac C.: Evidence on behalf of the United States...........--.---. 
Hamilton, James R.: Affidavit 24, United States case.............-..--.-- 
Hamilton, Jolin -R-: ‘Affidavit. 125, British case a... - eco ccacuckoscosee 
Hammond, 8. B.: Affidavit: 212 British eases: 2.226 <s32-.2<05 scecanee sscee 
Hannan, Richard : Affidavit 42, United States case.........-...----.-----. 
Harbour, George: Evidence on bebalf of Great Britain......-.....-..----- 
Hardinge, Captain Edward, Royal Navy: Evidence on behalf of Great Brit- 


Report to Vice-Admiral Wellesley, September 17, 1870.........-. 

Hardy, Henry: Affidavit 40, United States case..............----.---.---- 
Harlow, Reuben: Affidavit 262, British case... . 0.0... cece ebdcn cece cons 
Harrington, William H.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain............. 
Statement of prices of mackerel in American mar- 

kets 1003 101877 coo cs cas ccoec cs tas dorenseeres 

Hart, Alfred W.: Affidavit 175, United States case ........-...---..------- 
Harvey, Lieutenant-Governor, Fredericton, N. B.: Dispatch to General 
Campbell, January 27, 1838......-...-...; 

Dispatch to Lord Glenelg, Fredericton, March 

EDs Meu ones aaa has Saar hen sieeeateae eins 

Harvey, William: Affidavit 141, United States case..........-.-----.------ 
Haskell, Samuel : Affidavit 54, United States case...-....-.---..--------- 
Hautefeuille, on the limits of maritime jurisdiction...... ......----------- 
Hay, Duncan: Affidavits of, concerning encroachments of United States fish- 
€TMeCh; -VaNUATY 24, 1838 oe oe acs sabes a mesa ica Sac eaerdenaca nee eee 1 
Hays, William: Affiidavit 207, United States case.......-...-... ..---.---- 
Hayward, James S: Affidavits 49 and 50, British case..............------- 
Hazen, Judge: Judgment in the case of the White Fawn....-....--.---.- 
Headlands: British instruction to draw line between, when six miles apart. 
Headlands and bays: Question of opinion of Chief-Justice Cockburn...-... 
Opinions of Bluntschli, Kliiber, Ortolan, Hautefeuille, 


ee ee ee ee EEE RE REE ee Ee 


Hickman, George A.: Affidavit 166, British case.......... 2220. eee. eeeees 
Hickman, Samuel G.: Affidavit 62, British case............---------- cee 
Hickson, James: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain..........-.--+..ssee- 
Hill, Edward: Evidence in behalf of the United States..........--.- wees ° 


a 


4 
ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3479 
: ‘ rte : Page. 

Hill, Hamilton A.: Affidavit as to statistics submitted on behalf of the 
NTE DUR UOR eae ancl se ceala an nin eicins)-iccalviesinws cic recieeer wecmencn es paces 3357 
Hilliard, J. D. (Freeman & Hilliard): Affidavit 87, United States case...... 3155 
Hind, Prof. Henry Youle: Evidence in rebuttal on behalf of Great Britain.. 3399-3443 
Hines, Byron: Affidavit 224, United States case...............cc0- sence ee 3295 
Hirtle (or Hurtle), Edward: Affidavit 132, British case...................- 1254 
Hodgdon, Albion P.: Affidavit 128, United States case......2....2....2..-- 3200 

Hodgdon, Freeman: Affidavit 1, United States case -............22....220- 207 

Hodgdon, Stephen G.: Affidavit 126, United States case...................- 3198 
Holliday, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.....................- 856-864 
Holman, Henry T.: Affidavit 169, British case....... 2.0... 2.220 cece ce cces 1292 
Hopkins, Alfred: Affidavit 106, British case...... 22.220... cece nn cocece cece 1224 
Hopkins, Josiah: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain. .................... 1043-1046 
Hopkins, Richard: Evidence in behalf of the United States..............-. 2461-2469 
Horton, Edward A.: Affidavit-23, United S:ates case.........-....--2..-- ° 3060 
Howard, Oliver F.: Affidavit 263, United States case ...............--...-. 3329 
Howe, Ifon. Joseph: Extract from a speech of, July, 1865..... ........2... 1490 
Howell, John: Affidavit 231, United States case....... 2.2... 0. ee ee ee eee 3299 
Howell, William: Affidavit 232, United States case.........2......-. .eeee P 3300 
Howlan, Hon. Geo. Wm.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain. ...........- 374-394 
Howlett, James: Affidavit 31, British case ... 22. 1.2... eek ween oe cece 1132 
Meets, Eilip.sAtidavitios, British, Case. <3. ccccccisceece.sceccsesacancses 1171 


Hulbert, Robert H.: Evidence on behalf of the United States... .. 2432-2442, 2471-2482 
Hurtle, Edward. (See Hirtle.) 


Hutchinson, John P.: Aftidavit 266, United States case...........--.2.---- 3333 
Miyman, William : Affidavit 181, British case...... 22.0. cece. wee nee ceceee 1306 
I. 
Ingersoll, David: Evidence on bebalf of the United States................. 1959-1981 
Ingraham, Jobn H.: ‘Affidavit 160, United States case .......2..-...2.--06- 3234 
Ingraham, John L.: Affidavit 38, British case ..... 0.2.20 2. cece cee cee ce cece 1145 
Inkpen, Robert: Affidavit 2, in rebuttal, British case ..........---....--.-- 3444 
Inshore fishery: Jurisdictional limitation to, within the three-mile line 
claimed by the United States... ........ 2.206.200 cs00eees 122 
Three miles line. Reply of Great Britain ................ 169 
Insurance, fishing: Policy and by-laws of the Gloucester Mutual Company. 3449, 3452 
Treland and Tretethen: Affidavit 80, United States case ..........-..-.--.- 3147 
! J. 
Jack, Thomas S. (George Trefethen & Co.): Affidavit 117, United States case. 3187 
Saaokman, Michael: Affidavit 75, British case... 20... 2-2. ceccce coccne cocnee 1190 
Jackman, Richard: Affidavit 143, United States case .........--..----.---- 3216 
Jackson, M. M., United States consul at Halifax: Correspondence with Vice- 
Admiral Wellesley, August and September, 1870. ........----.----0------ 1494, 1495 
Jacobs, Solomon: Affidavit 259, United States case..... ee ceug ora tiveneee 3324 
Jameson, John §.: Affidavit 268, United States case.........-.-.--.------- 3335 
meen, ames: Affidavit 211, British 0990... ..--.. s.cncc cccccescccss cscs’ 1342 
, Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ...... ..--...--.....00- 733-787 
J, H. Nickerson, the: Judgment in the case of ...... 02.22. -. 220 ee eeee cone 3395 
Johnson, James: Affidavit 148, United States case...... ..---- -eeee eee eee- 3222 
Johnstone, William: Affidavit 189, British case...... 2.222.222. eee pe eeee 1315 
Jordan, William H.(Rowe & Jordan): Affidavit 67, United States case.... - 3132 
Jordan, Winthrop S. (W.S. Jordan & Co.): Affidavit 116, United States case. 3186 
Jordan & Blake: Aftidavit 113, United States case .-......---.---+-+++++-- 3183 
meet, Nathaniel: Affidavit 83, British case. .... ...2.. ccccee ccccee cocece cece 1200 
Joyce, Hanson B.: Affidavit 248, United States case ...-...----------+00-+- 3315 


Judgments of British vice-admiralty courts in cases of United States fishing- 
_ Vessels seized : 


<4 Mines awn TAZaN. osc cceceeus ccesber acu nce coe avaeoaner seen 3331 
. 2. Wampatuck: Sir William Young, J........---- -----+ ---+-+ -+-++- BINS 
3. A. H. Wanson: Sir William Young, J ...... 202 +--+ e200 enon -oee es 3383 
4, A.J. Franklin: Sir William Young, J ........-.-.---+-+-e- ee 33VL 
5. J. H. Nickerson: Sir William Young, J..--.. .----+ ---2++ ceseee ee 3305 
K. 
Kellogg, Mr. Commiseioner : His written dissent from the award of Messrs. 
Smead and Galt ...........5 -.-c00--sneascese tue anastienieeneespan : a 


Kelly, William: Affidavit 114, British case .... 2.2. 2--+ eee cece cece cone cnee 


3480 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


~ Kemp, Barzillai: Evidence on behalf of the United States ................ 
Kennedy, Andrew: Affidavit 237, British case. .... 22. 220. 2202222 seen ceee 
Kenney, Daniel V.: Affidavit 290, British case... ... 2... 222.2200 0- ewes enee- 
Kenney, Reuben C.: Affidavit 17, United States case .........- Reale bears 
Killigrew, William : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain. ............-... 
Kimberley, Earl: Dispatch to Governor Hill, of Newfoundland, London, 
PUN GUL debe dlc sesis cee sc Soleo e loca ia cem ies Geena nie sini malas lace Re eae ee 
Kirby, William H.: Affidavit 223, United States case ............--..---.-- 
Kliiber, on the limits of maritime jurisdiction ............ 222. 200. 22-205. 
Knowles, Commander, of the Lapwing: Dispatch to Vice-Admiral Fan- 
Bliawe; November /;,18/0. 2.5.2 cess cc ace ca camp eeraaenecaneameanccse cs 
Knowlton, Harvey: Affidavit 23, United States case ........ 22.2... .. 000. 
Knowlton, Harvey, jr.: Affidavit.68, United States case.........-.. ..---. 
Affidavit 226, United States case.................. 

Knowlton, John C.: Evidence on behalf of the United States.......... wees 


L. 


Labrador coast: American monopoly of the fisheries of, in 1827..........--. 


Lakeman, Joseph: Evidence on behalf of the United States............--. 
Lamontaigne, T. J.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain........-.-......- 
Lane, Samuel and George E. (Samuel Lane & Bro.): Affidavit 56, Unite 
bales CANO LS fs2e esas te eee en aes ae cae ene aes Sees Oa enema say 
Langley, George: Affidavit 170, United States case........---..-.-.2-.---- 
Larkin, Alexander: Affidavit 20, British case -..... .. ...--. 2-5 -20--.------ 
Larkin, Alexander Francis: Affidavit 5, British case.-.........22..--------- 
Larkin, William 8.: Affidavit 23, British case. ...5.-...5. ---.0- snsees ----- 
Laurie, Andrew: Affidavit 193, United States case........-....-.2-.------ 
Lawrence, George C.: Affidavit 45, British case....-...-...-.------ -------- 
Leary, Patrick : Affidavit 74, British case-:.-<sde't-<,-0cccacemsoens cooces = 
Le Blanc, Frank: Affidavit 176, British case... s2.n<0 -.00ccsemesecesesnne 
Le Blanc, Isidore: Affidavit. 144, British cas0.~.. 4.e6-s2<anssioccicecp nacue . 
Affidavit 180, United States case.........-.. ....--....- 
Le Blanc, Simon P.: Affidavit 181, United States case........ ........----- 
Lebrun, Abraham : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............-..-- 
Le Brun, Francis: Affidavit 188, British case... ..-: <2 ..-- 2. weseee cecese sn 
Lee, Charles: Affidavit 238, United States case .... ....2. 2-2 .22205 eee eee 
Legresley, John: Affidavit 170, British case...... ......---. eeeeee se seee 
Legros, John: Affidavit 172, British case.... -..-..-.---. .----- seseee eee ee 
Leighton, Andrew: Evidence on behalf of the United States..........-.-. 
Affidavit 26, United States case..........-....2-.--2-- 
Affidavit 221, United States case.. .............--....- 
(Leighton & Co.): Affidavit 71, United States case.... 
Lemontais, Philip: Affidavit 129, British case. ...... 2... -2..--- 2-2 cone ones 
Levanger, Edward: Affidavit 169, United States case....- Soelocessdsaeace 
Levesconte, Isaac: Affidavit 148, British case...... 2022. 22.22. epee eee -- es 
Levesconte, William: Affidavit 183, United States case..--......... dis seve 
Lewis, Allen: Affidavit 127, United States case...... .. 2-22 scene cone coeee . 
Lewis, Bangs A: Evidence on behalf of the United States........-....-.-- 
Lewis, B. A. (B. A. Lewis & Co.): Affidavit 92, United States case......-. 
Lewis, Jesse: Affidavit 270, United States case 
Lewie, Philip: Affidavit 100, British case... 240... ccccee s dooce gsedeses 
Lewis, T. C. (Lewis, Whitten & Co.): Affidavit 114, United States case . .- 
Licenses, Canadian fishery: Correspondence between Mr. Fish and Sir E. 


Thornton relative to abolition of...... 2.2... 2... .eeeee écttbec 
Light-houses: in Canada, list of, used by United States fishermen .......... 
on Newfoundland coast: cost of maintenance........--.. ET 

Lindley, Judge: His opinion on maritine limits of jurisdiction quoted. .... 
Lloyd, John: Affidavit 152, British case .... 20.22. .ee ene cece ds coccce ee sees 
Lloyd, William: Affidavit 213, British case...... 2.200. -.scceesccccs cence ° 
Locke, Austen: Affidavit 240, British case /..... 12.2 122. pec c ee cen ee cece 
Lohnes: Isaac: Affidavit 92, British case ...... ......-sseces secenss cap dane 
Londrigan, Lawrence: Evidence on behalf of the United States. .... $4, 4a0% 
Lord, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain...... .... .-.-..ee- ened 


3296. 
2729-2740 4 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3481 
Page, 
| Low, Benjamin (David Low & Co.): Affidavit 70, United States case ...... 3136 
| Low, Major David W.: Evidence and statistics on bebalf of the United 
SMMON, wa son sheen muvebese saacussenanesaoes aecesnascactess teense 2590-2696 
| Lowrie, Charles: Affidavit 197, United States case. .............2-.-eeeeee 3266 
| Lnee, John M.: Attidavit 179, British case ............ .sssss esses eeeeeee, 1303 
| 
| ™M. 
Macauley, Michael: Evidence on behalf of the United States...... Seana 2327-2345 
MacDonald, Alexander: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............. 1022 
Macdonald, Sir John A.: His views respecting reciprocity quoted in the 
IRLOM OCBLES CERO 36 osas ccda pau pewecctensassescesiacs seaman s 127 
Macdonald, John D.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain............... - 986-995 
_ Macdonald, John R.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain................ 976-986 
| Macdonald, Laughlin: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain............... 1019 
Macdonnell, Wm.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.................-. 843-855 
Mackenzie, George : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.................. 428-502 
Mackerel: A small amount caught within the three-mile zone............- 9 
UNMTECUON OL UGIG AON .2cs sncasncneaecansneses sbesan ceeccsiabans 129 
British claim that the greater part of the catch is within the three- 
RUG INGr ce oh ous sssh coke aK swee ovlanisaanawe scence ceeeieecurs 174 
American catch; report of Pierre Fortin .............. ....----- 2138 
: United States catch at Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, during 1873, 
ui ROU Asaasiscicaas eration acc ceces ect acnanisng sehen sare nate as cies 222-229 
ad Statement of prices of, in American markets, 1863-1577.......... 1043 
Mr. Noble’s statements of prices, 1861-1877.........-....--....- 1056-1062 
Imports into the United States from British North America...-. F 3353 
Imports into the port of Boston from British North America...... 3354 
Inspected at Portsmouth and New Castle, N. H........-....-.-.- 3375 
and herring: Annual importation into the United States........ 3352, 3353 
fishery: British statement of its value and extent..........----- 90 
Professor Baird’s views respecting, quoted in the United 
Miates ANSWOP spaces nena. oan gees anaes ss aes am ralsicer a 124 
‘In Canadian waters declining ...... co.cc. sescce secose ce 125 
iniVnited States inshore: waters. .- <0... .-<s.cscerenan> 130 
lean, James R.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain......---.---....- 281-304 
‘ docks, Benjamin: Evidence on behalf of the United States.........--.. 2159-2178 
AK B. Maddocks & Co.) : Affidavit 51, United States case. . 3114 
_ Maddox, Lewis: Affidavit 129, United States case..-..... ba esadieeaescnenss 3201 
_ Maddox, William T.: Affidavit 123. United: States Case -<: <.csssescescese-s 3194 
i uire, John: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain.........--..--------- 655-668 
ao Ne oe of the annual returns of the inspector-geneial of fish, we 
Bee eee esate nie | aeieuca he eee see imese ee ces slaen eens em enats 76 
Sain, rAlesis; ATH avit. 205, PstI CARO. ccancelcsscle= ana cns coven aaes'es 1335 
anstield, Alfred: Affidavit 32, United States case........---.-..------0-- 3093 
ter, Prince (Manter & Blackmer) : Affidavit 99, United States case. .... 3168 
Sfariacse jurisdiction in bays and between headlands : Opinious of inter- 
MEEIONSWEILTOTS Olas 3 coc iis oso csicicrson wa wlscaeensseviceccee'ccnainase émecse 163-166 
emcee, Francis: Affidavit 142, British case ...... 2... 222. eeeeee eee 0 eee 1266 
Affidavit 178, United States case.........----.---- +--+. 3251 
rshall, E.: Affidavit 36, Ur Eh BANG Geog coos vas cess dau ceteee yee sess 1140 
wrtens on the limits of maritime jurisdiction....-.--...---------+ APCPETe: 165 
in, Charles: Affidavit 257, United States case ..-....----..---------- 
om , Stephen J.: Evidence on behalf of the United States ........- 2 2316-2327, 2344 
William J.: Evidence on behalf of the United States...-..-.------ _. 2316-2821 
| Massachusetts: Extract from Sixth Annual Report of commissioners of in- 
|e laud Buberied 08 sok ccs. ccanaccs saavesscacsouspseses ances 233 
Analysis of reports of inspectors of mackerel, showing the a 
; number of barrels inspected ........-------+ -+---+------ 3377 
\ Statements showing the number of barrels of mackerel sub- 
mitted annually for inspection and reinspection from 1550 
tO NSO tet ee one son ae cofarari- eas aeoassnesitericensinsaaceas 3378 
Statistical information; returns by the deputy inspector of 
fish fOr LOSL. soso sos na sioawaaclesecicasnss vaee oe ceeeee cess 3379 
Statement of the vessels owned in, employed in the mack- ; 
erel fishery in 1853. ...-.... 2-20 e+ 2202 e222 eee e ee eee cone 3380 
Bi chon, Angus: Affidavit 121, British case......----.-+++++-- cucaeee sean 1240 
- Matthews, Allan: Affidavit 246, British case ..... eid maaan con Maae cawna on 1380 


3482 ALPHABETICAL INDEX, 


ex 


z 
Page. J 
Matthews, Parker: Affidavit 278, British case .... 252.5. .2.0. 2-0. 25 --- 1412 # 
McAdams, Daniel: Affidavit 241, British case...-......-.--------0- e220 ee s 1375 
McAdams, John: Affidavit 259, British case. ......0s--ess0y sreerescoces ce 1395 
McAlpine, William H.: Affidavit 150, United States case..........--...--- 3225 
McAuley, Luke: Affidavit 230, United States case.....-.-..-.-..----- +++ 3299 
McCauley, Luke: Affidavit 208, British case ...............----.---------- 1338 4 
McClintock, W. G. and John H. (John McClintock & Co.): Affidavit 134, a 
United States Casezscosccc cose cee coe nt ce somes keene es seiceccieS ese sjaens . 3206 
McCormack, Daniel: Affidavit 305, British case. ........--...----.-.------ 1437 4 
McDonald, Alexander: Affidavit 272, British case...... ....-.2-2..----. 200 1407 — © 
McDonald, Alexander: Affidavit 272, United States case.....-...--.-----. 3340 i 
McDonald, Allan: Affidavit 162, United States case........--......-.---.. “ 
McDonald, Angus: Affidavit 306, British case........-. .... 22-22. 2-2 eee 
McDonald, Daniel: Affidavit 202, United States case..........-..-..-..... 
McDonald, Donald: Affidavit 163, United States case..................-.-- 
MeDona!d: James: -Ameaavit: TR British) C886) osccicncacelen- owe coe sae iceeuece 
Afidavit40;( British: case... sa es ws copa. - Sees cceee 
Affidavit. 304, British case: <2 25 sos so eee cco cs Soncice 
McDonald, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain................ ee 
Affidavit 24, United: States case ......'. Sins -2--c- ecccee 
McDonald, John: Affidavit 33,-mitiah euse- <5 5625 25S Sea ccic— secu 
McDonald, Lewis: Affidavit 136, United States case ...........----. .---.- 
McDonald, Matthew: Affidavit 215, United States case............-.-.---- 
McDonald, Michael: Affidavit 156, British case .... 2... 2.222. 2-22. se oe 2 
Affidavit 309; Brertiph:Gase 57-552 ccs- sence eccceeenes 
McDonald, ‘Peter: Affidavit 307, British cape ..<. <. snes... Seba foe otsime 
McDonald, Robert J.: Affidavit 153, British case-......-.5...-.2---- .----- 
McDonald, Roderick: Aftidavit 201, United States case...-..........-.---- 
McDonald, Ronald: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain........-...---. - 1008-1014 
McDonald, William H.: Evidence on behalf of the United States.......--. 2404-2411 
McDougall, Donald: Affidavit 139, British case... ........--2...-..--- siete 1264 
McDougall, Robert: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain............--.- 876-882 
McDougall, Simon: (McDougall & Race): Affidavit 132, United States case 3204 
McKEachan, Charles: Affidavit 313, British case........ .-..-- --~ cone coos - 1449 
McEachren, Donald: Affidavit 142, United States case..........--.-...... 3215 
McEachren, Duncan: Affidavit 199, United States case.......-.--...2--..- 3268 
McFadyen, Malcolm: Affidavit 29, British case ...... ......-.-. ..---..2---- 3 1128 
McGrath, Richard: Affidavit 72, Btitish case... .s4.-<. cas cnaces ccsccecess 1187 
McInnis, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain..........-...-...-.- 1021-1022 
McInnis, John: Evidence in behalf of the United States......-..........- 2269-2275 
McInnis, Michael: Affidavit 161, British case...... pecausigcae aeeuaw cans mare 1283 
MelIntyre, Daniel: Affidavit 315, British case... <2. .c3. cencesceccccncoss 1451 
McIntyre, John: Affidavit 308, British case... ....... 02220 22-2 cc eces cone “1442 
MclIsaac, Barnaby: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain..............-.. s- 950-957 — 
MclIsaac, Clement: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain........-........-- 1017, 1018 
MclIsaac, James: Affidavit 267, United States case ......-.....-.---------e 3333 
McKay, Alexander: Affidavit 109, British case.........-....--0..----000-- 1227 | 
McKay, James: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain ................-..--- 614-623 
McKay, John: Affidavit 294, British case:. 225s soe ene wee eo ceeeeesentee 1425 
McKay, Wm. H., harbor-master of Princetown: Dispatch to Colonial Secre- oH 
tary Warburton, Joly 2, 1852). ccc.c<ccesitone cepetce mee ens anaee 1471. 3 
McKeen, James G.: Aftidavit 176, United States case ........--...-----.--- 3249. 
McKenzie, Alexander: Affidavit 249, British case...... 22.22. .- eee cone cone 1383 
McKenzie, Colin: Affidavit 34, British case...... 2.222. 22 conc cone wee eee cone 1137 
McKenzie, George : Affidavit 43, British case ....2. .0. 20. .c-cce ceccee secces 1154 
McKinnon, Dougald: Affidavit 203, United States case.........-...--2-.--- 3272 
McKinnon, John H.: Affidavit 218, United States case ...... 0.222. wee. eee 3290 
McLaughlin, Walter B.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain...........--. 732-756 — 
McLean, Daniel C.: Affidavit 314, British case..............-. Scivutceceee 1450 
McLean, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain..............------- 698-717 
McLean, Joseph: Affidavit 250, United States case ............-.-..--2---- 3318 
McLellan, John : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............--. SeSOAC 1022--1023 
McLeod, Colin: Affidavit 262, British case.... 2.22.5 2c. .c cece ee eee eee 1397 
McLeod, George: Affidavit 151, British case...... 2.2... - 20 cone cocoon - cone 1274 
McLeod, James: Affidavit 110, British case.... 2... 0.22 2222 ee cence e eee eee oe 1229 
McLeod, John A.: Affidavit 303, British case...... 2.2.2... 2... cece eee ce ee 1 
McLeod, William : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain......... wepeuieaten 417-446 
; Affidavit 245, British case... 2.2... 22. cece gulegerenaoes 1379 
McNair, James: Affidavit 158, United States case........-...-. BSS SO ee 5 3233 © 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX, 


MeNeil, Daniel : Affidavit 276, United States case... 0.0.22. cee e cee eee ee 
MeNeill, Alexander M.: Affidavit 1, British case............222.-.0-- edanee 
eee, John G.: Affidavit 42, British case.... 2.02. cone ccc cec ceccce secces 
McNeill, William: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ..............-..0.- 
Vimernee, Daniel: Affidavit 28, British case .... 2... 2.2.00 ccccce cece cocccces 
McPhee, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Brita‘n......2......2....22- 
t McPhee, John J.: Affidavit 39, British case .... 2.2... ..0.0. ccc coe e concees 
’ McPhee, Joseph : Affidavit 239, United States case ..............22...---0-- 
_ MePherson, Hugh: Affidavit 171, United States case..................--02- 


- MeRay. Thomas: Affidavit 209, British case...... 2... 2-22. cece en cee ccecce 


Menhaden as bait: Scarcity of,on the United States coast alleged in British 
CSS oak ciai haha ns Ase ina sianenismncieies eres sak ecdst usar sacaenber 
Menhaden fishery in United States waters: Value to Canadians as source of 
OED HOG hg aisearline sca inurikn Ree skew sae eaee seh es anes ch0 sc haederhemaes 

’ Mercantile Wharf Company of Wellfleet, Mass.: Attidavit 96, United States 


as: 
Siproer, Teaae: AGidavit: 163; British case... -- cose ccceicc cc cctcceuene cons 
Merchant, John: Affidavit 285, BPitigh: CASO ><> c2t cise eelcts cin tesoen deicac ance 
meeeritt, Gilbert: Attidavit 291, British case ........05 .- ccc ccccee cocccces 
Miller, Richard: Affidavit 136, British CBDO «05s csesee snce cece cone sees none 
Mills, Peter H.: Evidence on behalf of the United States .......-.......... 
Milner, Thomas: AMAaviti S10; Bribishy CAROs-. 3. ccrieecu cree, =caeeecctesvicees 
Molloy, William [A.]: Affidavit 208, United Stator onae ... 5.0 22053 ccc cscs 


| Montgomery, Hugh John: Affidavit 2, British case ...... 2.22. .22. pe ee eee 


Moore, William H.: Affidavit 161, United States case........---.---..----- 
- Morey, Stephen B.: Affidavit 43, United States case........-..+c20. esses 
Morgan, Moses C.: Affidavit 204, United States case. ........-... Naeawerewer 
amen: John; Amidavit 134, British Case 2... oc..cc-c0 cats acccesecessecces 
meersay, James.J.: Affidavit 17, British Case... ccccecscecccp ccececes cece 


| Morry, Robert: Affidavit 77, British case.......-.....0sscscce seeces seceee 


Morse, Edward: Affidavit 108, IBritishiCeeeo ccctess sca chock secuecs ese se 

Mosley, George E.: Affidavit 287, BPITISNICRSO ese epson ct edie wa sssee ne 

Mourant, Joshua: Affidavit 175, British PANGS. Sia ae cee cece ena eneaced 

Mullins, Patrick : Affidavit 234, ’British case La atis ee oeae Ww essbesaeesloees 

‘Mulloy, William H.: Affidavit 53, British case. OEE Eoeicaud se canner reat 
Munn, Robert Stewart: Affidavit 48, British zi Ret ts See ears 

Statements ‘attached to: aeavit:. 2262. ssc Oe 


| Munroe, Matthew : Affidavit 257, British case. ..........22 seeeee eeeeee ee e- 
| Munroe, William: Affidavit 256, British case.........--..-.--- s--+-- Paeaas 
hy, Bryan, Affidavit 145, inieAte oie Ce ie 


urphy, Dennis C.: Affdavit 227, United States case..-....-- coscscaweuees 
Murphy, George: Affidavit 157. Pree panels ho eo) voce tactics on 
S Morphy, John: Affidavit 120, British case .......2.. 2222. cecene cece cones 
Marray, David, jr.: Affidav it 217: DHE OREO 2622050 sececsccssd wc eaw ade 
Murray, Jobn: Affidavit 159, United States case ......20c0 ccc cece cece cece 


| Myrick, James H. : Evidence on behalf of the United States .....-..--. +--+ 


N. 


Nass, Charles E.: Evidence on bebalf of Great Britain...... ....20 200 cece 
Nearing, William : Afidayit: 111, British Case::.<-<.s/soscessesecsc< sccns~ os 


Nelson, Chresten: Evidence on behalf of the United States... caivcecsees 
elson, William H.: Affidavit 15, United States case... ...... 22. ---6 se esee 
(Nelson & Harlow): Affidavit 93, United States case -. 

Newcomb, Daniel C.: Evidence on behalf of the United SCRtOB ie acvees soos 
Brie, Thomas L.: Affidavit 107, British case . ...... 2.206 wnecce cocees 
ew Brunswick, assembly of: Report on encroachments of United States 
fishermen, March 18, 1839.2... .ecccccs cose coccce ceccss 
~ vice-admiralty court of: List of American vessels prosec uted, 
October 11, 1859... . sec eais esecisasieisasinavwncecossacce 

council and assembly of: Address to the Queen, November 

; 1, 1852 22. econ cen cee coc eee cence cece ee coc cce cocnee cree 

Address to the Queen from citizens of St. John, January, 

NSS aoe cc cache awe cicccees scleaaeisadhiveace sxae ne ke 

Memorial to the Queen from citizens of Northumberland 

County, January 5, 1853 ....-. .- eens ween cone cece ee eee 


_ = 
| Newfoundland: Description of the fisheries of .------- ---+ --++ +--+ +++--+-- 


4 
4 

ie 
e 


i - 
_ 


be: 
< 


Advantages derived by United States citizens from the fish- 
eries Of ....-..-----0- Jcetees eacupuee oe ccs tecccveccce 


1312 
2401-2404 
1452 
3282 
1032 
3235 
3104 
3273 
1256 
1115 
1191 
1226 
1420 
1298 
1367 
1167 
1162 
1164, 1165 
1393 


2740-2765 


1001-1005 
1231 
2765-2777 
30238 
3167 
2114-2121 
1225 


1464 
1481 
1481 
1485 


1486 
100 


103 


: > 
3484 ALPIIABETICAL INDEX. ee 


Newfoundland : Amount of award claimed in respect of .......-..-...----- 107 
Status of, under the Washington Treaty, as claimed in the y; 

United States answer roses scs-0¢stnbs vhapes- steaesbk es 122,136 

Status of, under the Washington Treaty, as claimed in the af, 

- — British reply... --. 22-2 coos concn coe nne cwewes ewes cence - 182-187 

Cod and herring fisherlge:. 6 <.- 3s -- oe sepsccins decwcesi oc ene 185-186 | 

Light-houses and cost of maintenance......--.....--...-. 1410 , 

Commons of: Address to the Queen, April 23, 1853.......-. 1489 

Returns of fish imports and exports of, 1851 to 1876........ 1509-1519 


Dispatch of Earl Kimberley to governor of, June 17, 1871-.. “| 
Nicholson, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.....-.......---.---. 64 2) 
Nicholson, eae (Union Wharf Company): Affidavit 83, United States 2i 


Nicholson, Nisha: Affidavit 192, United States case ...... .... ..--.. s---- 
Nickerson, Atkins (Central Wharf Company): Affidavit 84, United States 


Nickerson, Caleb: Affidavit 19, United States case ...... 2.2... 1-2. ---. 200 
Niekerson, Henry: Affidavit 97, United States cases. .jc.. 2222... 32s. s-ccee 
Nickerson, James A.: Affidavit 37, SELUION CABO oc ci coed cela cle sae ae Fyre 
N ickerson, Stephen, Stephen E., and Alonzo R. (S. Nickerson & Sons): Affi- 
davit 133, United Slaten Onab:. 6c. ows oe hap eeese eee 
Noble, Robert G.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............----0-+ 
Statements of prices of mackerel ............-. ---.---<- 
Noil, Alexis: Affidavit 191, British case....25.<2-2 ccpececuccscs Geccec «licce 
Noil, Francis: Affidavit 210, Brigigh Cas@r.sacsin pack is cdeeegewsssStcw~n < 
Norton, B. H., United States consul at Pictou: Letter to S.r A. Bannerman, 
October 28, 18522; ....-.).2-25- consi 5. hs cane Seappeesiodusts Sabie sas sus aisas 
Norwood, George: Affidavit 25, United States case.......-.........--. -.-. 
Norwood, George and Frederic (George Norwood & Son): Aftidavit 65, United 
DEAtCS CARO) 222.022. ep cncc> sca sclsepnlpa pipe eebate alesnetesaes = 
Nova Scotia: Return of fishing-vessels of the United States at Port Mulgrave 
and their catch in 1873 and 1874.20.04 .s<0-5.- Jet Ass- f-0205 
Light-houses on the coast of, used by United States fishermen. 
Address of the council and assembly of, to the King, concern- 
ing encreachments of United States fishermen.......-....- 
Address to the Queen on the same subject...--....--..--.-.-- 
assembly of : Address to the Queen, February 17, 1853 ...-.-. 
representatives of: Address to the Queen, March 30, 1853 -..-. 
council of : Address to the Queen, April 4, 1853 .........-.--. 

(See Eucroachments. ) 
Nowlan, James: Affidavit 41, British case -...cswedscs..cccce'snsacs ssn acece 
Nute, Charles H.: Affidavit 213, United States case 


oO. 


Oakley, Joseph: Affidavit 214, United States case... .......-.--. ..-. 26. - 
O’Brien; Edward: Affidavit 101, British:Gaso-...--.15- socetses ease se acescs < 
O’Connor, Maurice: Affidavit 19, British case..............--..----. pace 
O'Connor, William: Affidavit 178; British case... 2-.0-.2< s-2<9eg= posear-6 
Oliver, D. W.: Evidence on behalf of the United Stutes:::-- 22.5 ssssesunee 
Open-sea fisheries : British reply on question of purchase of bait for.-..----. 
Orange; Daniel: Affidavit/174, British (Case: t. oe .- eae cae eee eaeeeeeslecne 
Orne, Charles H.: Evidence on behalf of the United States....-......-.--. 
Orne, Freeman : Affidavit 124; United, States case cx-=:--occ52 550s sos ossoep 
Ortolan on the limits of maritime JUPISCIGHON co ate ccs oo,s c's ome ae seaam olan 
Outhouse, Amos H.: Affidavit 284, British cas@-.....- 26. secees scvesesonnes 
Outhouse, Whitefield : Affidavit 25, BritishiCaee e223. sae ae oe ae eee 


P. 


Packwood, John: Affidavit 192, British case ...... .--20+ -ecces sesee- ceecee 1319 
Paine, Joshua: Evidence on behalf of the United States ........---.------ 2074-2083 
Paine, J. and L. N.: Affidavit 90, United States case ........-. -..<-.--.--- 3189 
Paint, sr., Peter: Affidavit 44, Bridsh 0a80's.. coca SY ale oy ob gio uh eee iat 
Paquet, Marshal : Affidavit 25, Britial. Ma06...20 vsc6.c2 oe be ees oo eee nen 1124 

Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ..................- 942-950 
Parkhurst, Charles E.: Affidavit 277, United States case .........-.---.--- 3343 


i 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3485 


) 7 Page. 
Parsons, Thomas L., Eben, 2d, and George (William Parsons, 2d, & Co.): y 
pet atidavit 63, United States case... ... 0. cess seccoccceuce coccecce 3128 
Parsons, William, 2d: Affidavit 240, United States case..........2. 0202 eeee 3309 
ee Affidavit 258, United States case ..............-06-- 3324 
| Pattillo, James W.: Evidence on behalf of the United States... 2... cols. 2777-2795 
i illo, Thomas R.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ................ - 971-976 

mi, Richard: Affidavit 70, British case .... 22... 2.2.00 ccc cec coecee ccees 1184 
Payson, Charles H.: Affidavit 288, British case... 22.22... ele cece ee eee e 1421 
ayson, Holland C.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain................. 1014-1017 
| Payson, Joseph D.: Affidavit 197, British case ..........2. 0.222 cee e ween 1324 
)) Peach, John: Affidavit 117, British case...............------.. see eee eee 1236 
| Peeples, Ebenezer C.: Affidavit 156, United States case.............222...- 3231 
| ples, James: Affidavit 152, United States case.............222. 02200. e 3226 
' Peeples, Samuel H.: Affidavit 157, United States case .............2.....-. 3232 
' Peeples, Samuel P.: Affidavit 153, United States case .......-...2......2.. 3227 
eirce Moses E. (M. E. Peirce & Co.): Aftidavit 125, United States case... 3195 
e nell, seenry:> AMOGVIt 73, British CA8C.. 6% 6isseiccss awewsuccee cose tae 1187 
| Perkins, W. H., W. H., jr., George, and George H. (Perkins Brothers): Afii- 
Been 40, WDNtOR States CSC... ...cccsesccses scence scocns neces scuvcececes 3108 
' Perley, M. H.: Extracts from his report on the fisheries of New Brunswick 220-221 
Perry, Gilbert: Affidavit 21, British case... 22. 0.22... ccc eee cece cocces once 1120 
‘a , Stanislas F., (see Poirier) 
' Perry, William: Evidence on behalf of the United States................. 2493-2497 
' Pettes, James A.: Evidence on behalf of the United States .......2.. 02... 2920-2931 
' Pettengell, Charles D.: Affidavit 50, United States case ..........-..-.-..- 3113 
i ettingill, Charles C.: Attidavit 14, United States case ..............---.-- 3024 
Pettingill, Moses: Evidence on behalf of the United States ............... 2121-2128 
| Pew, Charles H.: Affidavit 31, United States case. ...........2-022-- ceceee 3092 
Mal Evidence on behalf of the United States ............... 2879-2907 
| Pew, John J. (John J. Pew & Son): Affidavit 47, United States case....... 3110 
Phelan, James: Affidavit 158, British case .......... 20-20 cee eee cece cee eee 1280 
ae WORILe RAMGATIG VES, DPItIGN CABO: soo .o0 csaees aces as dike be cecd vaeres 1351 
-Phillamore, Captain: Extract from dispatch to Vice-Admiral Fanshawe, 
BEEIETO DOWER ESTO os ho ce co adn = Joni s acm ese ascace cae sce sew penesasees 1497 
_Phillimore : His opinion as to the limits of maritime jurisdiction (see brief) 156 
Swaillips, David: Affidavit 185, British case... 2... ..---- ceeeee ceceee cecces 1311 
ammeot, James: Affidavit 98, British case .... .... 2.2.00 cece eon cece ee cece ne 1217 
Pierce, Albion K.: Affidavit 24, United States case...............0-225 220 3065 
14 Affidavit 260, United States case .... 2.00 2.2 ccc cccccce 3325 
| Pine, Owen: Affidavit 69, British case .... 0.2... 0-22-02 2220 coos eee e eee eee 1134 
Me Hilip:: Affidavit 67, British cage... 2.2402 06260. cess vo ccce ccoces seas 1182 
_ Pinkham, Thomas: Affidavit 231, British case ........-...-----.----0+---- 1416 
Plover: List of American fishing-vessels boarded by, during July and Au- 
EE PST eo no os cnnnenisn esas Wada Rot hawn ces aa dcn'es cen ese aeewes.a's 1501 
imemamer, G. W.: Affidavit 22, United States case. ...... ... 20. cecccc ccccccce 3055 
ee Evidence on behalf of the United States .......--...-.--- 2907-2920 
| Poirier, Stanislas Francois: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain .......--- 359-370 
Pool, Solomon: Affidavit 241, United States case.....- Pa OnOrery Re eCrTy 3309 
200le, Christopher C.: Affidavit 234, United States case ......-.----.------ 33 
Port Hood: Abstract of the state of the papers of British vessels at, in 1852 1481 
Power, Mr., of the Canadian Parliament: His views as to the advantage of 
te Feciprocity uoted .... 0.000.200 cose covene cone cane cocces secce - 127,132 

Power, Stephen: Affidavit 3, in rebuttal, British case.....---.. .----+ eeeeee 3445 

Price, Henry: Affidavit 180, British case.... ...--. s2eees eeeeee cee eee eons 1305 

Prince Edward Island: Documents filed relative to American fishing in wa- 

A tere of, Britigh ©A86 ..-<00 sss scanceiccccesseccees 190-196 


Quantity and value of fish exported from, 1850-1872. 235-237 
Council and assembly of, petition to the Queen, 


Maroh’ 24) 1843). occclcscwesece concrecenesansecis 1465 
Council and assembly of, address to the Queen, Feb- : 

Tuary 9, 1852 2.2... cee coe conn e coccce seceee ces 1469 
Memorandum of vice-admiralty court relative to 

seizures of fishing-vessels......-..---++--+++---- 1489 
List of foreign vessels boarded within 3 miles of, in ee 
List of American vessels sven, but not boarded, in - 

NOD cose eee cae anc cee canmaeeeen === Ren vinesins © 1508 


Correspondence relating to encroachments of United 
States fishermen since 1818. (See Encroachments.) 


3486 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Prival, George: Affidavit 215, British cage .... -22. 2.22.0 co-0 cences senses ce 
Proctor, A.G.: Affidavit 76, United States case. . 2.2.2... ..- cen cc enes secece 
Proctor, Joseph O.: Affidavit 53, United States case.-.....--..-.--..---..- 


Evidence 


on behalf of the United States.......-....... 


Protocols of each day’s conference: 
I. June 15, 1877. Organizationand culess2. <5... sos cacecns seco 


. August 1, 1877. 
. August 2, 1877. 
. August 3, 1877. 
. August 6, 1877. 
. August 7, 1877. 
. August 8, 1877. 
. August 9, 1877. 
. August 10, 1877. 
. August 13, 1877. 
. August 14, 1877. 
. August 15, 1877. 
. August 16, 1877. 
. August 17, 1877. 
. August 20, 1877. 
. August 21, 1877. 
. August 22, 1877. 
. August 23, 1877. 
. August 24, 1877. 
. August 27, 1877. 
. August 28, 1877. 
consul... ss, 
. August 29, 1877. 


altered 


. August 30, 1877. 
. August 31, 1877. 
. September 1, 1877. Question of commercial award.--.-....-.. 
. September 3, 1877. British evidence continued ........-...---- 
. September 4, 1877. British evidence continued. .-..-.... 
. September 5, 1877. Arguments as to commercial privileges -...- 
. September 6, 1877. Commercial awards excluded ...--...---.- 
. September 7, 1877. British evidence continued ..........-.-.. 
. September 17, 1877. 
. September 18, 1877. 
. September 19, 1877. 
. September 20, 1877. 
. September 21, 1877. 
. September 22, 1877. 
. September 24, 1877. 
. September 25, 1877. 
. September 26, 1877. 
. September 27, 1877. 
. September 28, 1877. 
. October 1, 1877. 

. October 2, 1877. 

. October 3, 1877. 

. October 4, 1077. 

. October 5, 1877. 

. October 8, 1877. 

. October 9, 1877. 

. October 10, 1877. 
. October 11, 1877. 
. October 12, 1877. 
- October 15, 1876, 
. October 16, 1877, 
. October 17, 1877. 
. October 18, 1877. 
- October 19, 1887, 
. October 22, 1877. 
. October 23, 1877. 


. June 16, 1877. Records of last conference read.............---- 
. July 28, 1877. Answers, replies, and briefs filed............... 
. July 30, 1877. British case and American answer read..-.-...... 
. July 31, 1877. American answer and British reply read........ 
British 6yidence.c5. + sseicaeee woe aw coe s See 
British evidence continued .............-...-- 
Buitish evidence continued ..........-. ..eeee- 
British evidence continued...............--.- 
British affidavits -....... 


British evidence continued............--..-. 
British evidence continued.........-....--- 3 
British evidence continued ...... ......--.... 
British evidence continued ..........---..... 
British evidence continued..............-.. - 
British evidence contiuued.............-.-.. 
British evidence continued..........-....--. 
British evidence continued...............-.. 
British evidence continued...-...........--. 
British evidence continued...............--. 
British and American evidence.........-.---. 
British evidence; proposal of United States 


wee wee wee eee te eet wee tee wwe eee ee eee 


mae te ee ee ee eee wet eee te eee tee eee ee 


British evidence continued. .............. 
British evidence continued .............. 
United States cases opened. Evidence... 
United States evidence continued........- 
United States evidence continued ........ 
United States evidence continued ........ 
United States evidence continued ......-.- 
United States evidence continued .......- 
United States evidence continued ........ 
United States evidence continued .......- 
United States evidence continued ......-.. 
United States evidence continued ..........- 
United States evidence continued............ 
United States evidence continued...........- 
United States evidence continued............ 
United States evidence continued. ........... 
United States evidence continued...........- 
United States evidence continued............ 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued...........- 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued........... 
United States evidence continued ..........- 
United States evidence continued........... 


Pa eA Sk aaa 


my 


geeeurasageg 


Se cag EES MRS Saks 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3487 
; : Page. 
Protocols of each day’s conference—Continued. 
LXIII. October 24, 1877, United States evidence continued........... 68 
LXIV. October 25, 1877. British rebutting evidence ................. 69 
LXV. October 26, 1877. British rebutting evidence continued...... 69 
LXVI. November 1, 1877. British rebutting evidence continued .... 70 
LXVII. November 5, 1877. United States closing arguments begun .. 71 
LXVIII. November 6, 1877. United States closing arguments continued 71 
LXIX. November 8, 1877. United States closing arguments continued 72 
LXX. November 9, 1877, United States closing arguments continued. 72 
LXXI. November 10, 1877. United States sowue arguments con- 
WIUCOR eee vu hace se ceek dine ae day dv abancanaedaecnce eck 72 
LXXII. November 15, 1877. British closing arguments begun ...,.... 73 
LXXIIL, November 16, 1877. British closing arguments continued..... . 73 
LXXIV. November 17, 1877. British closing arguments continued...... 74 
“LXXV. November 19, 1877. British closing arguments continued...... 74 
LXXVI. November 20, 1877. British closing arguments continued...... 75 
_ LXXVII. November 21, 1877. British closing arguments concluded. .... 75 
~ LXXVIII. November 23, 1877. Award pronounced .<s; is... canpiasee 76 
erowee, Samuel: Affidavit 27, British case... 2.2... 02. cc connec cone cecece 1126 
Pablicover, Geoffrey W.: Aftidavit 251, British case. ...............2-- cece 1385 
Publicover, James: Affidavit 138, British case....-... 2.222. eee ce cece ween 1263. 
Purcell, James: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............2.....2- 628-638 
Purney, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain:............... 2-26. 1049-1055 
a - R. 
& 
Race, James L. (McDougall & Race): Affidavit 132, United States case. .... 3204 


Rebutting testimony and affidavits on behalf of Great Britain ............ 3399-3448 
“Reciprocity : Views of prominent Canadian statesmen as to advantages to 


the Dominion, quoted in the United States case....... 127, 128, 131-135 
f Advantage claimed to be in favor of the United States....... 179-182 
mecd, Levi: Affidavit 130, United States case.... 22. 22.0.2 2- cee cone sceee 3202 
eReeves, James: Affidavit 64, British case.... 2... 2222. ee eee coon cee sec vee 1179 
* ‘Reeves, Robert J. :. Affidavit 222, United States case...............0-000- ee 3293 
mppion, Thomas C.: Affidavit 177, British case... ...... secccs cecceccccces 1301 
seaonnels. Isaac W.: Attidavit 258, British case..............-.-- ene cee eeee 1394 
~ Renonf, John: Affidavit 223, British case.....-. Staple tabeste aueieaaianees 1357 
_ Reply of Great Britain to the answer of the United States.........-...... 169 
_ Rich, Abner B. (Central Wharf Company): Affidavit 84, United States case. 3152 
‘Rich, Marshall N.: Affidavit 12, United States case...... 2.2... ...-2. .eeeee 3016 
Yegmichard, James S.: Affidavit 81, British case...... 0... ..-22e ceccce cence he: 1196 
; meeerd, John Daniel: Affidavit 261, British case...... 2.220. ..2020 ence voce 1397 
Richard, Elias: Affidavit 136, British case. .......+-- ..-. see. ceeeee eeee eee _ 1260 
Richardson, Peter S.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain................ 995-1001 
Riggs, Aaron: Evidence on behalf of the United States.............-..... 2204-2213 
meer. futons: A Midavit.139,. Brigish COBO... cece voces cncsscc. weer sectac acne 1256 
Semeper, Dan: Affidavit 89, British case .......001 e-00ce aeos vesenecs sacs cees 1206 
Ritcey, Thomas, sr.: Affidavit 253, British case.........-..---.----0+----- 1387 
Roberts, Thomas C.: Affidavit 80, British case...........-----.---- ee 1195 
‘Roberts, Thomas E.: Affidavit 255, United States case..........-.-..-+--.- 3320 
Robertson, Hilaire: Affidavit 159, British COBOL soles aaels seas tieniewesloeeal 1230 
Robertson, Michael: Affidavit 250, British case.....-...--.--.----++----+- 1384 
Rogerson, James J.: Affidavit 51, British case........ beens ceeeee ree ene ee 1166 
Rogerson, Hon. James J.: Affidavit 162, and statement of fish exports from my 
manewfoundland, British case... ... 2... 2+ -0+ soncoe cece cone cocene cnee cons MA i. 
Romeril, George: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain....--....---+------ reas 
Rooney, James: Affidavit 187, British case.........---2.----ee-eeeeeeeee- ae 
"Rooney, Michael: Affidavit 235, British case...... 0.2... ...222 cece ee ce eees rs 
Rose, George: Affidavit 54, British case.......... 2-4 ---+ sse22e 0s Liana ae 
, Affidavit 6, in rebuttal, British case ...... 2... ----0---00 cee pd 
| Rose, John : Affidavit 56, British case...... .-..---- +2. +--+ + eee eee eee ys 
Ross, Daniel: Affidavit 302, British case...... .- Joesceees di cuatnnncesavaees jtieaee 
| Ross, William: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.......--. iPr freer a Bone 
Rowe, John J.: Evidence on behalf of the United States pomtiettissemminlue mee weer 
Rowe, Joseph (Rowe & Jordan): Affidavit 67, United States case.......--. ae — 
rs Evidence on behalf of the United States .....-..---.+--+--- 2931-4 ; 
‘Rowe, Samuel T.: Evidence on behalf of the United States..........-...-- 2362-237 
Rowe, William D.: Affidavit 262, United States case .. ..-.-. +--+ +--+ +--+ cae ae 
Louis : Evidence on behalf of Great Britain........ a Wecate tuskicose B1i 


Lig ark; 


, 


3488 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Royal Gazette of Charlottetown: Extract from, June 26, 1838....-....---. 1 | 
Ruggles, Benjamin H.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............. 1036-1042 
Rules for the procedure of the Halifax Commission...... .... Member efeeus asic 13° 
Rules of procedure before the Commission amended...........-----.------ 35,36 
Rumsey, Thomas: Affidavit No. 1 in rebuttal, British case. .-.............. 3443 
Ryan, Martin: Affidavit 191, United States case ............--02.----+---- 3262 
Ryan, Philip: Affidavit 192, United States case .........-..-----..--+----- 3262 Se 
Ryerson, Samuel M.: Affidavit 300, British case....-...-.2.. ---2--------- ° 1429 
Ss. 
Samuel, James: Affidavit 194, British case. ......-seeces coccce coccce cocces 1321 
Saunders, John E.: Affidavit 41, United States case ...... aiscwioviee cons cok 3102: 8 
Savage, Thomas: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............--..-.-- 756-770 
Sawyer, J. W. and Robert H. (J. W. Sawyer & Co.): Affidavit 118, United | 
States case...-.. Seeceaione siepeiels = 4 Gumledp ete san Web eo csie ae sleaaeeuleawane 3189 7) 
Sayward, Daniel: Affidavit 62, United States case ............ 222. cece eeee : 3127 
Sayward, Epes, jr., and George: Affidavit 61, United States case ..........- 3126 
Seaboyer, Gabrie] : Affidavit 233, British case ...... -.s-cssecnec eecs teeecs - 1365 — 
Seaboyer, James S.: Affidavit 252, British case... 2... ..-- .ccees -o- 22 0seee 1386 — 


Seymour, Vice-Admiral: Dispatch to the Secretary of the Admiralty con- 
cerning American encroachments, October 30, 

LBD? ccue ke kentaeereseeatetes nee wees here aur 1474 

Dispatch to the Secretary of the Admiralty, No- ; 

vember 16; 183525 soc. coc, esas secoseewacacscese 1475 


Shipping-papers of fishing vessels: Copy of, form employed ..............- 3456 
Short, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain. .......--..----- ---+ e--- 797-801 
Simms, George: A fidayit 168, British: case... <c.ete wacsscicec sce wodccce- ne 1290 
Sinclair, Peter: Affidavit 261, United States case..-... ..--..----.. -.-- 26. 3327 | 
Sinette, Joseph: Affidavit'217, British case35s. 2.65. s-ccqs.c-cocscavescs ewneis 1349 
Sinnett, William A.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain --....--.....---. 404-411 
Sirois, Josef O.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain..........--.-.....-.-. 802-803 — 
Sirois; /Philias: Affidavit 222; British CasO..sc2o's.'00 couse s ew nnsse serene =: 1356 
Skinner, Archibald B.: Affidavit 255, British case ...... -.--.. ----06 cencce- 1391 
Skerry, James: Affidayit/9; British case: J.0.0.- ts cs sa ca owleccweeyaes nae ues 1104 © 
Small, Asa W.: Affidavit 16, United States case........-.. wise apa amie (omnes 3032 
Small, Caleb: Affidavit 105, United States case... . ..- 20. wcccne cone soee neces 3174 © 
Small, James A. (Central Wharf Co.): Affidavit 84, United States case ....- 3152 — 
Smalley, Castanus W.: Evidence on behalf of the United States........... 2442-244 
Smalley, Charles E.: Affidavit 17, United States case...... 2... ---- see0 ose 3035 
Smeltzer, John: Affidavit 135, British case... ...-2. 22-22 eeeee qesecoste ees 1258 © 
Smith, Aaron: Affidavit 77, United States case..... Muccm cic ewes eastenteisehee 3144 — 
Smith, Charles: Affidavit'84; British.case... ¢c-ccec cctece ccalgootestaswositecs 1202 
Smith, Edwin: Evidence on behalf of the United States. ............. o---- 2262-2269 
Smith, Joshua: Affidavit 263, British oase 2.2.2.0. ese est cee wes we ciceoe cues 1403 — 
Smith, Judah:C.:; Affidavit 283, British:ase:.2-<.- seco. cocci ccacewesewens 1416 
Smith, Nathaniel: Affidavit 146, United States case. .......--....-..----0- 3220 — 
Smith, Peter D. (Smith & Oakes): Affidavit No. 48, United States case. .... 3111 
Smith, Sylvanus: Affidavit 34, United States case........--. Bete cee 3095 
(Smith & Galt): Affidavit 73, United States case..... ae 3139 — 
Evidence on behalf of the United States......... wceces. 2004-2575 


Smith, Thomas Charles: Affidavit 144, United States case..... aineSc Reese % 3218 
Smith,William, controller of customs, St. John, New Brunswick, extract mi 
from report: Of TOG6 ooo racce ewes esas wee see weteces wauelcne tena eee 220° 7) 
Smith, William B.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain. ............-...-. 1075-1086 | 
Smith, William D.: Affidavit 254, British case - .....0 .-seee cee - secces cues 1388 
Smyth, Christopher: Affidavit 130, British case .......2.. c202 pe eee ee ones 12517) 
Snellgrove, George T. R.: Affidavit 53, and statements of herring fishery in 4 
Portune Bay. Dritish Gas. oon << «caccvac mae waves tawacssstsaretomeecou 
Snook, James P.: Affidavit 60, and statement, British case ........- cinalv owe 
Snow, John W.: Affidavit 206, British case... .0-secc sashes coceccpcesucenc 
Somes, John E. (Clark and Somes): Affidavit 74, United States case. ...--. 
Spearwater, James W.: Affidavit 90, British case ...-......- Seren en rer 
Speeches of counsel: (See Dana, Doutre, Foster, Thomson, Trescot, Weath- 
erbe, and Whiteway.) 
Staples, John: Aftidavit 45, United States case...... ..- 22. cence ceccee cece 
Staples, John S.: Affidavit 275, United States case....-... 00. seeeee pueteae 
Stapleton, Edward: Evidence on behalf of the United States..... okie aves 


T.0n 


Stapleton, John: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Statistics produced on behalt of the United States (Appendix 0): 
I. Statistical documents; fisheries and trade between the United States 


i 


a OF WwW W 


_ 
oo Cc os 


. Imports, fish of all kinds, 1845-1876 
. Mackerel and herring: quantity consumed in the United States, 


and) British:Norgh America. 2-0 s<cceslwace vas cadebeucasaecewe base 
ag as of fish into the United States from all countries, 1869- 


ee ee RR CERO EH Re ee ee ee 


. Importations of fish and fish products from British North America, 


OUP PION cond hs Sea che cannitved asd nieka sce sonkad tuaesseepal cee keee 


. Imports of fish from Canada and British North America, dutiable 


ang free; 1OG9—1877 << «cena ce tsonese iawane cee ecinseaseewesiawae 


Se ee a 


BOOB AISIOG Si ccs! sesviwn se spascacabeus. cee ane. cbschesneses ees elaben 


. Mackerel and herring: Annual importation into the United States, 


PEA RICUG  eccts Rance wun esha eu bane he uekicnd ous oaks Manee bane ee 


. Mackerel and herring: Annual importation into the United States 


from British North America, 1872-1877 


ee ee ee 


. Mackerel: Imports into United States from British North America, 


WSABHNS (BER sravacm arene. !atels Seinen erase ek es oo ssleue nec eertisikee pas 


. Mackerel imports at Boston from British North America, 1845-1876 
. Statement of duty saved on fish oils imported into the United States 


from British North America, 1874-1876 


ee ee es 


. Imports of fish of all kinds at Boston from British North America, 


OAD 1 SLO a5 oe% ca omens see eecwe tite ae 


re 


. Exports of fish oil from Boston to British North America, 1845-1876. 
. Exports of fish from the United States to British North America, 


BOO 1S eens nce nese a cinwieec aisascise Sacatasueciee ca csineesencs ’ 


. Exports of fish from the United States to the Dominion of Canada, 


and to other provinces of British North America, 1867-1877-...... 


. Gross product of the American fisheries except the whale, 1870-1876 
. Yield and value of the Canadian fisheries, 1870-1876 -.............. 
. Exports of fish from British North America, 1870-1875 ............- 
. Table showing statistics of the manufacture of menhaden oil and 


guano in the United States in the years 1873 to 1876............ 


IJ. Numbers and tonnage of vessels of the United States employed in the 


cod and mackerel fisheries from 1866 to 1876, inclusive..........- 


III. Statistics prepared by Mr. George Brown Goode : 


1. 


2. 
3. 


Products of marine fisheries of Southern Massachusetts and Rhode 
TAIRNG oee  2eae eae bok ce wioe cacleesls wee eesnie’ fomeeeeecenn 
Products of marine fisheries cf the North Atlantic States..........- 
Statements of imports of mackerel at Boston, January 1 to September 
BUTE ee cee aclsm corn oe ennis sam cWslseesebisns scaesmmise se casicesneais 


IV. Statements taken from the books of Gloucester firms, produced by 


Mr. Babson, filed by Mr. Foster on October 24, 1877, and objected to 

by the British counsel as not being properly verified, and therefore 

inadmissible as evidence, but admitted by Commissioners for what 
’ it may be worth: 


Mavidsuowsen Cos aratemen be... +. occse asst dcwess acew ccleclececie cen 
A. Leighton & Co.’s statement...... .----..- 2220 eee ee cone co eeee 
Bb. Pettengell & Cunningham’s statement .... ...-+.------.--- +++ 
CG: -Statementior, W: Parsons (20): &:CoUs2-.. 5-02. ssc. saeslscncwes 
Da. Statement af Alired Mansteld) co... ccce0 cceog oop aciecce(acenes= 
Ha Statement.of Bo Madd0CKS):25cc2.ccss cde sans! sscc/eceeisemeeeis 
i> Statomentiof iD; Os & Ue Babson. oc<csoc.ccce sc cece saasivieseen ae 
Gu Statement. oc COrkins OrOUOIs). 22.2 osncl- +4 'oncceeleomeasiacee > 
H. Statement of Hardy & Mackenzie.............--. Baan aes 
1 -Statementiot. Willian: C: WoODs0n).2.2<. s-4--2 -conceceeeccicens 
J. Statement of George Sayward ........---- -.--20 -eeeee coe eee- 
K., Statehiont of Daniel Sayward... -...- 2 .cccccc secccencecss esse 
i “Statement of PrederickiG:. Wonson. =. =. 2 3/05 cee conece ces sce 
Me Statement. of salle! -EaBKell? ce onc o nes ovis os acs eee elemeomie 
Nin Statement of SmithiG Oakes: .~ ccs secs nice discs 'ecoaecions cleans 
©: Statement of Samuel Lane & Bro... 0.6250 0.2500 consccscccce 
P. Statement of Shute & Merchant ...... ...... 2220s cen enes coeee 
Q. Statement of Walen & Allen .......---+----- +++ --+ eee ee tees 
R. Statement of Dennis & Ayer. ...-.. 2-2-2. seene cone cee cee co eece 
S. Statement of Joseph O. Procter........----+----+---+-+ ee-2e8 
T. Statement of James G. Tarr & Bro..-.. ...222 coce ceo cee ceccee- 
U. Statement of Clark & Somes ...-....-22+++--2+ cere cere ce eeee 
219 F 


3490 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Pa 
Statistics produced on behalf of the United States (Appendix Q). “ 
IV.—Statements taken from the books of Gloucester firms, &c.—Continued. 
V.. Statementiof Joseph Wrien@-<.. oes. 2uocsea tone cose sence toes 3372 
W. Statement of George Norwood & Son -.-.-...:........-....-.--- 3372 
X. Statement of George Friend & Ca --=. 2-220. 2.222 oas.c- 2. - 3373 
Y. Statement of Cunningham & Thompson..-.--... Be Rank! Lehi eae 3373 
Z. ‘Statement of George: Dennis QA <e-. 2225s -sacsce oStec-25- 3373 
AAS “Statement:of, Rowe te JOndan. cues cose cee son soars orca ec 3374 
BB: Statementofseonard |W sien=-c--- +5 404-02 ces pee oeee oe 3374 
CC. Statement of William 8. Wonson .......-.....--- Ae en 3375 
V. Statement of mackerel inspected at Portsmouth and Newcastle for the 
VeaTs 1500) to L877 s1nClusivGn.s aoe eee cao be seee ce sa scie ree enincse 3375 
VI. Summary of the annual returns of the Inspector-General of Fish for 
the:State’of Maine: 1866-187 30s 26 eee eee oe ees ewee cee 3376 


VII. Summary of returns of mackerel inspected in the State of Massa- 
chusetits, 1850-1876 ss 67-6 eens cee n sere cn senso seceas abe kd oe 


Steele, George: Affidavit 38, United States case. ...... 22.22. .2-2-. 22-2 -eee 3094 

Affidavito7,-Unitted: States ease) :- 123-03 hates e25es 3121 
Stewart, Charles: Affidavit 233, United States case........-.....-..--..--- 3301 
Stinson, Michael: Affidavit 135, United States case ...... .......----.----- 3208 
St. John, N. B.: Address to the Queen from citizens of, January, 1853..-... 1485 
St. John’s, Newfoundland: Chamber of Commerce of, views on the reci- 

PLOCLLY QUEHHON; JUNO 2a lOdd). -wenelseseeer es ccnseasas secman acanesic ase 1488 
St: Lawrence; Gulf of: Light-housee in. sssow.22- 2 si So sho eee 1088 
Strahan, Asberry: Affidavit 145, United States case...........--..------.- 3218 
Stuart, Charles: Affidavit 168, United States case .............-..----.-.-- 3241 
Stuart, Daniel: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............2...----- 697, 698 
Sullivan, Humphry. Affidavit 8 in rebuttal, British case ....-...--....-... 3448 
Swain, David Affidavit 318, British ease 722s. -2a5 ces cna nnccnesesecs 1454 
Sweet, William: Affidavit 122, British case’.S.<-. 052.52 nee ces cone wees 1241 
Swett, Noah: Affidavit 13, United States case ...... 22.2. ---2 ee eee oe nee 3020 

(Agent of Commercial Wharf Company of Wellfleet): Affida- 
Vit.95; United States Gases cee cin to cee teeeness 3164 
Swim, Benjamin: Affidavit 212, United States case.-......-.-..--...-----. 3309 
T. 
Tapp, Mesiah:: Afidavit.193, British: case ..~<-2c.<5=040mesee ci nenia-anese sens 1320 
Lapp; Robert: Afidavit:207,: british case... <,,.csssabeacconscesisncg cee 1337 
Tarr, David and James G. (James G. Tarr & Bro.): Affidavit 72, United 
States case)... <:-.speccc-=a5 Sale pais a See Sie eae oe ae alors ale eaes Saxe 3138 
Tarr, James G.: Affidavit 37, United States case -...-.---...-.....202.---- 3097 
Tarr, Moses: Evidence on behalf of the United States -.........--...--.-- 2378-2382 
Tarr, Zebulon: Affidavit 278, United States case .... .----- ace ----onceccce 3344 
Taylor, John F.: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain .........-...--..-.. 817-827 
Terrio, Simon. (See Theriot.) 
Terry, Russell D.: Affidavit 235, United States case..... el SealaaRa can sa Reales 3303 
Testimony in rebuttal on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government: 

Examination of Mr. Henry Youle Hind...-. Ponelsa eee a celestial eater 33J9-3443 

Testimony. (See Evidence and Witnesses. ) 
Theriot (Terrio) Simon: Affidavit 182, United States case -........-..--..- 3254 
Thomas, Jerome B.: Affidavit 77, United States case ....-. ...--. e--2 200 3144 
Thomas; Richard: Affidavit 124. British:Gaé6 ---52.0-.e2se-=sicees soe we eee 1244 
Thomes, C. D. (Thomes, Chase & Co.): Affidavit 119, United States case... 3190 
Thompson, William (Cunningham & Thompson): Affidavit 58, United 

States Case coc ccsccs: seca ee ee sane euieeee Ride tncnecscuuecnces ene eee 3122 
Thomson, 8. R.: Opening speech in behalf of Great Britain, July 31, 1877.. 1521 

Argument against the right of final reply, August 28. 
TST octet covones ee Soe ee receule oy sian daae coe - 1523, 1525, 1531 


Argument in favor of awards for right of purchasing bait 
and transshipment, September 5 and 6, 1877..1547, 1577, 1579, 1584 
Final argument on behalf of Great Britain, November 19 


Bd 205s cia eeakeeuccdy stleecs so apaueun sane oeaws 1777-1885 
Thornhill, Philip: Aftidavit 5 in rebuttal, British case. ..........---------. . 3446 
Three-mile line: Opinion of international jurists relative to, quoted .....- - 156-166 
Thurlow, George D.: Affidavit 252, United States case.............--. ---- 3319 
Thurston, Abram: Affidavit 299, British case .... 2.22... cee ene cece ee eneeee 1428 
Thurston, Winthrop: Affidavit 244, United States case ........-...-.-. ---- 3311 


EE —————— ll 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 3491 


Page. 
Titcomb, W. P. (Treasury Department): Certificate and statement of num- * 
ber and tonnage of United States fishing fleet 1866 to 1876. .............. 3359 
Tolman, George: Affidavit 111, United States case ..... 12... ceccsc cece voce 3180 
Tory, James A.: Evidence ou behalf of Great Britain: oi. .seltess Hikes 864-876 
Touzel, Philip: "Affidavit 231, Britioh cape olsos.- dese Sf tGos Ka Fain wok atone 1363 
Tower, Abraham H.: Affidavit 100, United States case ........-2...:--.2..-- 3169 
Townsend, Joseph: Affidavit 151, United States case..............--...-- " 3226 
Trachy, Edward : Affidavit 195, British ease... . 6. .c6 cele cds Uave wccee ° 1322 
Transshipment of cargoes: Privilege of, not allowed as an element in the 
AWALG . ccc vows case UE OWEL B20 oe UR Usey eOeede 7,40, 43, 44 
British claim to pecuniary compensation. ....- - 172-173 
Motion to exclude, as a basis of digi: debate 
thereon September 5 and 6, 1877.........-... 1539-1538 
Trask, Wallace: Affidavit 286, British case 16.0. .2clie.caevcvwsewoceccOuls 1420 
Treaty of Washington: Articles relating to the fisheries. ...........-...--. 1, 83, 139 
Extracts from instructions to Her Majesty's High 
Commissionores.:.scdsdccudeicses se ve tecevovaaswe 238 
Extracts from protocols of conferences ..... easietek 239 
Tredick, C. Morris: Affidavit 109, United States case........ 2... 2-22 ceceee 3178 
- Trefetben, C. & H.: Affidavit 121, United States case........-.. cc. eeecee 3192 
Trefethen, George (Portland, Me.): Affidavit No.8, United States case. .... 3001 
eee Trefethen & Co.): Afiidavit 117, United States a 
iclembsiscccsineces vet cobbeew bengal use slnatices aacs 318 
Trefethen, George w. rarer & Trefethen): Afidavit €0, United States 
BERG c a ein Sota sia See wereoalaa ce alcnls sects cUaaln ae vawowls eels wale e an ae 3147 
Tremain, Edward D.: Affidavit 276, British casevs- oie. Ges Soces stidccwtselad 1411 
Trescot, William Henry: Motion in behalf of the United States respecting 
the right of final reply, and the debate thereon, 
August 28;:1877 sos cc ied s soak cence cuwae ens save 1521-1538 
Arguments in favor of right of final reply, ae 
QB LOT Tice ce vo see ccltac at Nestosooeeemscee 24, 1535, 1537 


Argument against awards for right of a aimalan 
bait, and transshipment, September 5and 6, 1877 1547, 1566 
Closing argument on behalf of the United States. 1629-1651 
Trufant, Albert T.: Affidavit 6, United States case ........--.. .-ecee veces 2994 


Tucker, "Daniel: Affidavit 99; Briel ealaee oe cat nc, coe 1218 
Tucker, George (George Dennis & Co. ): Affidavit 52, United States case. 3116 
Tulk, William: Affidavit 97, and statement of vessels calling for ice and bait, 
| EETS TA go Fa a NTO ISL SR ER CARIES ances 1216 
Tupper, Joseph J.: Affidavit 347, United: States! Oase.o..2..scsccmseseaeiscce 3313 
Turner, Ezra: Evidence on behalf of United States ...........----....--- 2345-2362 
U. 
Union Wharf Company, of Provincetown, Mass.: Affidavit 83, United States Sie 
QAEO. ca soca se eae cree ties clos ccs caries aise so acise cisuieise's eeuins wnok eeelelesiaw=s 
United States: Answer to the case of Great Britain. ..--...--.---++-+-+---- 119 
Brief upon the question of the extent and limits of Canadian 
RTISHOLOUHSHERIERS 2c aac oosecnecs encase aes eeeeeases on™ 139 
Upton, George A. (Leighton & Co.): Affidavit71, Uniced 8 ates case -...--- 3137 
Vv. 

* Vardon, John: Affidavit 202, British case ........-... ----ee ee eee ee eee 1330 
Vattel, on the limits of maritime jurisdiction ........----..----+-+----+++--+- 162 
Vavasseur, Hugh: Affidavit 65, British case...... ..---.----++-e2-0+--++-- 1180 
Vessels: Revised schedule of, seized in 1870 for violations of Canadian laws. 1500 

Foreign: List of, boarded within three miles of Prince Edward F 
Palanan 87 ore oc en osc oc oe ca oe eal sn wiadelsceeisadeitcr's<tlans sain scam 1504 
American fishing: List of, boarded by the Plover, July and August, 7 
RBIOR ccicas cose cle toes essai nese ssecwicsces cacn sere sts seesecess 1501 
United States fishing: List of, seen but not boarded in waters of 
Prince Edward Island 1 1872... . 22 ne. secsccascencscsscovssuce 1503 
United States, employed in cod and mackerel fisheries : Statement ; 
Of, 1866 $0. 1876 6 cs acd sot sce vccted ced ese sessnciessceswese Wie 3359 
Belonging to Massachusetts: Employed in the mackerel fishery in 
oo PP are rere wauces oc ccacdevebabowandhe ccchveesen 
Vibert, Philip: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain ssv2ee<ss....0..2de0s 446-462 


3492 ALPHABETIUAL INDEX. 
Ww. 
Page. 
Wade, Edward: Affidavit 102, British case - .......-0.. 05-22. ee s-ee coos pone 1221 = 
Walen, Leonard: Affidavit 66, United ‘States Gases. fone i cieginnccs sc cce 3131 4 
Walen, Michael (of Walen & Allen): Affidavit 49, United States case ...... 3112 
Walsh, Dexter F.: Evidence on behalf of the United States ..-............ ©2458-2460 
Walsh, Edward: ‘Affidavit 196, United Stateaease: . << ..2.05.5 ech ode ccesnsce 3265 
Walsh, Patrick: Affidavit 187, United States case ........-.-..--.--...---- *. Qe 
Affidavit 216, United StalesiGase's. escnccececck tec ck <= 3289 
Walsh, Thomas: Affidavit 310, British Case. 2000 sib ites wae neh oo acest un 1445 
Wampatuck, the : Judgment in the case Of... 220. cateue i cedecceues nc scccss 3383 
Warren, Nicholas: Affidavit 39, United States case...... ......---..--.---- 3100 
Warren, sae Evidence on ‘pehalf of the United States .........-...... 2497-2506 
Wasgatt, C. (C. Wasgatt & Co.): Affidavit 137, United States case. ...-.. 3210 
Watts, William: Affidavit: 267,; Rritighease sons :.d rises oos5---s ccs ces cae 1401 
Weatherbe, Mr.: Argument in favor of awards for right of purchasing bait, 
and transshipment, September 5 and 6, 1877.-..-.-.-..- 1558 
Weaver, C. A. & Co.: Affidavit 139, United States case...............----- 3212 
Webb, Patrick: Affidavit 165, United Skates dase ticerceccc ese occek occas 3239 
Webb, Seth and C. H.S.: Affidavit 44, United States case.............---- 3105 
Weekes, D. F.: Affidavit 104, United States case. ...... ...s-2..----------- 3173 
Wellesley, Vice-Admiral: Dispatch to the secretary of the admiralty, No- 
Vomber 15; ‘TS0O 7 2s 2 oss iwcwiaccehyss scisses woes 1492 


Correspondence with Mr. Jackson, United States 
consul at Halifax, August and September, 1870. 1494, oo 

Wentzler, Benjamin: Affidavit 85, British case.-.... 2.2... 222-22 22s eee ne 
Wentzel, Martin: Affidavit 270, British #a6 2. licks sean = iswha ms 1408 


West, Donald: Affidavit 160, British case 22.) .-..sdeGsi28..<. 5. sceccd sacs 1281 
Whelen, Mauris (Morris): Affidavit 35, United States case......--...-.---. 3096 
White Fawn, the: Judgment in the case of. :--.- ...00-.. 2-2. ---0--5 wes eee 3381 
White, James ¥.: Affidavit 7, British case... .< oo.<cscs ccs. ccyee's cone soso 1100 
White; John? ‘Afiidavit'76; British: case... 2.:,.<..cscts emacs sac ntenseseses 1190 
White, John D.: Affidavit’3; British:.case .u05.05c5 ccosssoc oss scecse tones 1093 
White, Thomas H.: Affidavit 237, United States case..............-..----- 3305 
Whiten (Whitten), O. B.: Affidavit 10, United States case........-.-.----. 3009 
Whitten, O. B. (Lewis, Whitten & Co.): Affidavit 114, United States case. 3184 

Whiteway, W. V.: Argument in favor of awards for right of purchasing bait, 
and transshipment, September 5 and 6, 1877 ... .----. 1565 

Final arguments on pehalf of Great Britain, November 
| GPa Loy ene ieee rere * [snk ae eae ape ee see) Sn 1705-1723 
Whorf, Philip A.: Affidavit 91, United States case ..-.......... 2.2. .-2- ---- 
Wilkins, Edward N.: Affidavit 274, United States case ........ 2.222. ----s0 
Willard, Enoch G.: Affidavit as United DtALES CARO ccm o cesses cee ceeot eee 
Affidavit 112; United States tase: .2..'s.5<..2-5 saceseucce 
Willard, Henry E.: Affidavit 5, United States case.... ........-...-------- 
Willard, William H. (Lewis, Whitten & Co.): Affidavit 114, United States 
CASOS SEE oc 2a iee coe eke 
Williams, A.T. (Union Wharf Company): Affidavit 83, United States case. 
Williams, Gilman S.: Evidence on bebalf of the United States....-.....-.-. 2573-2590 
‘Winser; Peter: Affidavit 78, British caso..5+.2 22> .o2c-0 2 scc seca tesco se 
Winter, Thomas: Affidavit 66, British case...--.-.--- ----.----- --- ---0e- 


fi Chivarie, Simon: Souris, Prince Edward TSIABA pace ete sserieee neces 
2. Maclean, James: Souris, Prince Edward Island ................-..<. 
3. Campion, John F.: Souris, Prince Edward Island......-......-------- 
4, Campbell, Joseph: Souris, Prince Edward Island ............---.---- 331, 370 
5. MeNeill, William S.: Rustico, Prince Edward Island ...--...--...-.. 343 
6. Poirier, Stanislas F.: Ti znish, Prince Edward Island .......-2. ....« 
7. How lan, George William: Cascumpecque, P.ince Edward island ésae's 
8. Harbour, George: Sandy Beach, Gaspé. .- 2... ccccne snoces ctideo es ~ wwe 
9. Sinnett, William A.: Griffen’s Cove, Gasp6-.t2c- ccc. ooo- wires Dees ees 
10. Grenier, Grégoire: Newport, Gaspé. Cohpepinccsce arses thie ae seeemoes 
11, MeLeod, William: Port Daniel, GANG. nance nce se eee Meese vbeme 
12. Vibert, Philip : Peres, ‘Gaspp..>.-- poms aes n= -s:-- =< sa Gyhate< eens 
13. Fox, John James: Amherst Harbor, Magdalen Islands...-...-. pewens 
14. Mackenzie, George: New London, Prince Edward Island.........--.- 
15. Bennett, Thomas R.: Harbor Grace, Newfoundland.......-----.----- 
16. Killigrew, William: St. John’s, Newfoundland .... ...... ...-02 ee-eee 
17. Fraser, James O.: St. Juhn’s, Newfoundland .............---..-- re 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


. Grant, Angus: Port Hawkesbury, Cape Breton............-.-...--.- 
| MeKay, dames: Port Mulgrave; N.8.-6065. caccce cotewacnes udielscaces 
Pye DTOOl. <lOInes s Ore MUlOTaVe: N. Be occ ccccecas deeb ccoweadsaatusce 
». pardinge, Edward: British Navy... . 226 .<....s.<. diccsseces sees sree 
. Nicholson, John: Louisburg, Cape Breton .........-.. esecbdviasneeneas 
> maraire,Jobn: Steep Creek, NeiGso.66 2.05 secs os ccese scel beseeebabed 
Brown, William : Port Medway, N. 8... 2.25 i.cccsecsccce sccese edths . 
Bigelow, James Wasi Wolfville, Neo. 3 oso ccc acc.cccesslacecedekwar 
Stapleton, John: Port Hawkesbury, Cape Breton ............ coats 
Wraytow, michael: Barrington, Ns S.s~2s.05<s.sc sn ccsocassscaccmsacs 
Stuart, Daniel: sslifax City <5. eae ooisc wes becassubecussuencies 
McLean, James: Letite, Charlotte County, N. B............. sechevee 
Lord; James: Deer Island2Ne Be ocsc: Aessscccccec aseces csodeeawcace 
McLaughlin, Walter B.: Grand Manan, N. B..............222. eceee 
Savage, Thomas: Cape Cove, Gaspé ...........-.2....--26 teases coco 
Bakor, Jameei:: Capo Cave; Gasp6.2 52052. 22% asc ccccoccns cc ccacleace - 
JOBSOP, Jad; NOW POIt, Gasne:<5.-2s..5 2050 cvenecciencecweceescs cauc 
Hignn;- William : Percé, Gaspé... 222. 225 osc.coe cee cece secs caeces ceec 
Couture, Joseph : Cape Despair, Gaspé .....-. ...2.. .-.2c0 pec cce cece 
Lamontaigne, T. J.: St. Anne des Monts, Quebec................--.- 
PHOLt; Conlls \Geapec-=—-5..2 ces sho ceide® cx iése sos ek accucinee hissy elecsc 
Sirois Joset O:: ‘Grand Riviére,'Gasp6\.. 20. <5. Sccicccsescacece sccece 
40. Lebrén, Abraham: Percé, Gaspé 22.5 62.55 .sice saccce oes on ceccsas 
Bi Royoauouis «.Capeihatte, Gaspe...5.c2-- <5 Gea sccaveerss ove aces cavecs 
42. Taylor, John F.: Isaac’s Harbor, Guysborough County, N. S........- 
Mo: Bison bauer, James :-UOneRbUrg N.S 22565 cececccese ssc cosssas cae 
a4 Romer. George: Perce, Gaspe..-~ oc sceccessoe ce cas cocesndccacnets 
son Macdontell William: ATgvloy NS co sess wcus eens cccusccsece soe 
ao. olliday, John::: Quebec City <2. o cots wens ccecsecnss. aovas'socese 
a7./ Lory, cames A... Guysborough, Ni 8): 25225 22 cess cosas tenses acess 
48. McDougal, Robert: Port Hood, Cape Breton ..........-....--...---. 
M9) FP OFtii wOITe +4 QUGUOG; CILWs. onc o ows Soe asi sce. saclcecisccs seeencme 
50. Hickson, James: Bathurst, Gloucester, N. B ...-.....--. .--.---.--- 
51. Gardner, Enos: Tusket, Yarmouth County, N.S ...--. sasucaieeae oo = 
2: Ross, William): Halifarm Citys. 22s ocscsccoce ku e'wss cose scceueseces 
Bo Creede G@parios 1; Halling Oiby. 52.522 ss ss cece sos sce secdealticcessse 
54. Dillon, John: Steep Creek, Guysborough County, N.S.-.-.--..-------- 
55. Paquet, Marshall: Souris, Prince Edward Island....-....-...-..--.. 
56. McIsaac, Barnaby: East Point, Prince Edward Island......-.......- 
57. Tierney, Joseph: Souris, Prince Edward Island............-..-..-.- 
58. McPhee, James: East Point, Prince Edward Island ......---...----- 
59. McDonald, John: East Point, Prince Edward Island........-.-.---.- 
OO: Pattillo: Thomas: BR. BabvVerpook Ns Bose -<.505oiisnic cases cece cesessice 
61. Macdonald, John R.: East Point, Prince Edward Island......--...-.- 
62. Macdonald, John D.: Souris, Prince Edward Island..............-.--. 
Os; hichardson, i Ober. oc ONesters IN. 2.2 «2 scese bee las aticcsa sees see's 
Ba. Nass: Charlies: b.2; Chester, NUS: =< 0.css500-ssedes ae case eecdcecens.e 
G5.) Long) ober: Garaguatte, No bo2ct oo... 5. acsoasiccsca-scseeccee see 
66. McDonald, Ronald: East Point, Prince Edward Island .......----.-- 
67-Payson, Holland C.: Westport, N.S. 02.5 J..ce cc ceeesecsccosse cose 


BYESSe 


~ 
- 


. 


BRYSKERSRSSRSES 


2 68. MclIsaac, Clement: East Point, Prince Edward Island..-.-..--.------ 


69. Macdonald, Laughlin: Souris, Prince Edward Island..---.-.-..----- 
70. Beaton, Joseph: East Point, Prince Edward Island.-.....-.----.---- 
71. Mclonis, Jas.: Souris, Prince Edward Island ........-...---2 -22+ 2+. 
72. MacDonald, Alexander: Souris, Prince Edward Island ..--..-..----- 
73. McLellan, John: Souris, Prince Edward Island .--.-......-.--------- 
74. Champion, Benjamin: Alberton, Prince Edward Island. ......-.------ 
75. Cunningham, John C.: Cape Sable Island, N.S ...-..-...----------- 
76. Ruggles, B. H.: Brier Island, Westport, N.S.....- ...--. -------- +--+ 
#7. Hopkins, Josiah :. Harrington, N. 8...-.. ...22- cece coes core cscs scenes 
78. Harrington, Wm. H.: Halifax City, N.S.... .... 2202-220 2-00 eee e one 
70: Parney, John: Sandy Point, N.S ...< .-.6 2225 costes cons coen eon ceca’ 
80. Noble, Robert G.: Halifax City, N.S .-2... 020. 2200 coe ene cone cece ee 
RA. SRETV, <IGINOS ® COUCRW Gigs cote acc awe cere wewenewesns ck cdee ne eames 
82. Smith, William B.: Cape Sable Island, N. S.... ..-. ---- ---+ +--+ +--+- 
83. Browne, Daniel M.: Halifax City, N. S ....-. ---- 222 ---- + eo 2+ cones 
In rebuttal: 
1. Hind, Henry Youle: ...-.. 2.22. 22. --- oe con enn e cone coe cece cece 


3494 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Page. 
Witnesses examined on behalf of the United States; their testimony: * 
1. Bradley, James: Newburyport, Mags... .< 0... .ccssesde sccecs cons cocees 1907 
2. Stapleton, Edward : Gloucester, Mass........--.--..----. +++ e200 1925 
3. Cheney, S. F.: Grand Manan, N. B...... 22.655 se acsseneedenses- ese 1945 
4, Ingersoll, David: Gloucester, Mass ...... .. ..--60- 2--22- seeeee coeeee 1959 
5. Atwood, Nathaniel E.: Provincetown,Mass ... <<. ...<..s<-22..<...-. 1981, 2047 
6. Kemp, Barzilla: Wellfleet, Mass ... 5. sieies cecnsewe nc ee esccee scenes 2028 
7: Freeman, Francis M.: Provincetown, Mass -2u <2 -s <<’: <.<--<s-0s pone 2049 
8. Cook, Henry: Provincetown, Mass....---....-- MEPS Sse coe aoee ee sue 2066 
9, Paine, Joshua: Provincetown, Massa —-~. 5. -.SUs/ sss ciset ec eniten coda osc~ 2078 
10. Freeman, Nathan D.: Provincetown, Mass ....:. 3..<s5..:........---- 2083 
11. Lewis, Bangs A.: Provincetown, Mass ..........-..--. Secehesisce ess 2087 
12; Graham. ames W..s> WelLNGOLs MASH. <4 Sent ss eats sss ecko ces ctoe 2095 
13. Newcomb; Daniel:C.: Wellfleet, Mags ~. <2. «cat < cos so 50) sneone odie 2114 
14. Pettingill, Moses: Newburyport, Mass: << .o2:.<.c25 2.6 <2 5-25) ween - 2121 
15. <Young; Isaiah’C. = Wellfleet) Maas= 27. 5 sec testo set cocaine someon 2128 
16. Daniels, Timothy A:):’ Wellileet, Mass... -<..62-32- 332c0 <2 - 2 es cce 2131 
17; Oliver: DD. Wet Wellleet: Mase sc. s54. on caee coeeee stata eect ee eeee 2132 
18. Friend; George: Gloucester; Mass .-S. 56 - < <<< nis a ocengteciccc ane o5ce 2133 
19. Orne, Charles H. : Gloucester, Mass\.c.. 2... 56 v2 Stake ace esc ose 2148 
20. Maddocks, Benjamin: Gloucester, Mass .......---...---. Bek ecwence- 2159 
21. Leighton, Andrew : Gloucester, Mass. <= <..-3. << -cseses ss iS ccesce 2178 
29: Ricgs. Aaron: Gloucester; Mass 2. nec cces- vlab ach socces dacaeee ae 2204 
25". Rowe, John J.: Gloucester, Mass 2.2.0.4 coc ccc locvace caasisccclesceen 2213 
PA. Gale, Job Hs Gloucester; Mass. 2.6ere. 2 ese reste ees ween esse esses 2231 
96. Ei vitt; Joun §.: ‘Gloucester; Mase .2. = o<2 os ws coe ce ho ao cei sine See 2241 
26. Cook, Bonjamin F.: Gloucester, Mass... 225.65 steak v0 ns scctbds cece oc au 2252 
27, Smith; Edwin :. Gloucester, Masa... 2 2s<-.-scssjebw ews cease scee c= 2262 
28. Melnnis, John: Gloucester; Magsr.o 25 .2oc5 scccte sconces oc eestassess 2269 
29.. Procter, Joseph: O.': Gloucester, Mass cos s2--nesscesseneeseciccun seas 2275 
20, Gardner, Sidney: Gloucester, Mass <<. <<< 220-55 s226 «52-acMibeesGer- <2 2312 
31... Martin; Stephen’ J: Glomcester, Mass 5. 5<5</-2-56 -oce<< cancokuseu es 2316, 2344 
32: Macaulay, Michael: Gloucester, Mase... ..< 2. </.c00<scencsccocubws s-s5 2327 
0; Laurer, hzra:: Deer Island, Me.2-.0..4..-<tcecnisess Joes cee eeeee cess 2345 
34. Rowe, Samuel. 'T:': Gloucester, Masa. .o5..-46 252 scoces news. sueninces 2362 
30. Larr, Moses:::Gloucester,,Mass .ooc<e.co< -<-s2500~ ae oe aetiee Sek wore nee 78 
3G. Ashby; benjamin :-Noank, Conn: sccc. 222s sces = ones sae coh sinccemas es 2382 
oi; brown, Joseph I. > Gloucester; Maas! 205. ~ vo aos casas wise ssw scour e ses 2390 
26. Mills. Peter H-;: Deer Island, Mo... --~.2- Seseccece oon se = ces eeetecss = 2401 
39. McDonald, William. H. :: Gloucester; Mass.~.<.. <2... 255 .csee cee 2404 
40). Dickey, Walliam:-A.*: Belfast Me. -2< 2. socccccnccccccccssecensaceucce 2411 
Al. Gray, Plvarado: Brooksvallé; M6 22.2..-- 232-2 sens == oe me eesaens 2418 
42. Hulbert, Robert: H. :° Gloucester, Mass <=... -222.:5--s...<2-cseacecescoec 2432, 2471 
45, Swnaliey, Castanus- Ws: Delage MO... 5.2.4 ..asisccues o0cu tenuesaesse 2442 
44; Googins; Edward’A.’:. Portland; Me-..><2.<:..cs-oeaceeeccceeeeeecaa 2448 
45. Burgess; isaac ~ Belfast. Moo.-sc.2 so tse n tesa cacuce sooecs ceceteeenas 2453 
AG. Brier, Charles Hy: Belfast: Me. 22.2 sce seks eoteccecetese en Redcat 2456 
Ay. Walsh: Daxter Ph. Beltasto Mo ~.-cucecle cee ccs ace ace seae eel cease 2458 
48. Londrigan, Lawrence: St. Mary’s Bay, N. F....- .... 2.200 .2s 200 ence 2460 
49. -Hopkine:; Richard :; BelfastMe.- -- -.2..2c. 2c once ese ccaseceone ester 2461 
OU; Clark, George: 0: : Belfaak, Me oi on05¢ sg nce sx onss encase a. <cacae gees 2469 
oi. 'Gurrie, James: Pictou; NuiSas--2- .ocecs ce sccassscescdsche ste eeceae 2482 
2. Perry, William: Sheet Harbour..Ne.8:.:-.+<.c22sesacccue tee esee setae 2493 
55. Warren; .bomas: Deer island. iM6.. 0s. 4 see. ces ouecceseece ee eee oe 2497 
64. ‘Fisher, Wilford J.2 Fastporé, Me. 2. <- << os ccecececees euncascuen cen’ 2506 
+. Lakeman, Joseph’: Grand Manan, iN. Bi .... ccs ss-2-e-eaceecene ses 2527 
56. Smith, Sylvanas: Gloucester, Mass... ..ccccs.. cece coos cove sees cose 2534 
57. Williams, Gilman’S.;: Gloucester, Mass .:.. sco. .o<c-5 ccccce sccees:os-> 2573 
65. Low, David W.;: Gloucester, Maas... 55.20... ss <-sn co-v cadets ceeweaen 2590 
59. French, Eliphalet W.:. Rastport; Me... <.0<<<- cece cceecacd cece ssace 2696 
60. Davis, William : Gloucester, Mass ....02 <0 sesenc ces seccee cocnesse 2710 
G1. Cook, William-O; *:Glonoeater, Mass (272 2a0s.cc<snanccescans casseess 2711 
G2. 211, Ma ward’:Glonoester, Mast..-. icccnoccss ccacechnasee see csanases 2714 ; 
63. Conley, John, jr. : Rockport, Maas <.<..02<.5.0<c0cecsManbbvennacedas 721 
G4. Knowlton, John C.: Rockport, Maas. os. .2sc0 cesccuceboewss <oouse< 2729 
GS. Myrick, James H,*Bogton; Mage... cocs ¢sccse focnie cee cuceceeus esoue 2740 
66. Nelson, Chresten: Gloucester, Maas .... 2.2.2. .ccces cc. aoc cecces cone 2765 
7. Patillo, James W.: North Stoughton, Mass...... ....-.-....-e20 202 2777 
68, Baird, Spencer FP. 2; Washington D.C. 22. < cccgewsencce vecces sehen 2795, 2321 i 
‘ { 


(Care - 


PR 


nya me 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Witnesses examined on behalf of the United States.—Continued. 

Bo. Mass, William:J.: Cheater, N. S20... ssccde as cvenvtesesteoe ceoeksn ch 
70. Churchill, Howard Ms ROSCICO; be Ud pase aaneenbsn ve crnuammaes mare 
71. Hall, Isaac C.: Charlottetown, P. E. I., and Winthrop, Mass........- 
72. Falt, Walter M.: Gloucester, See ea alate ea" * a 
73. row, Charles H: > Glonoester,: Mane: ..s<:n<ccscceb vaes cccu nengpbee eres 
74. Plumer, George W.: Gloucester, Mass ..... dinagsiess ones veasisinwentce 
is, Pettes, James A.s'Grand Mananiedsi.c.casansiecscnsecs cine cs nabs Comme 
$0. Owe; Joseph :Gloucester, Maas. oc. sceced+ nea cave avensecesgeewers 
wae wwonson, Roger W. : Gloucester, Maes <p 0svccs sc acses'oesicccusevgeute 
78. Babson, Fitz das Gloucester, Mags.-255.--.. Sande ae ole 

Wanson, Frederick G. (John F. Wanson & Co.): Affidavit 30, United States 

CASOl Se scites cot cesnec cee ea's wap bse vitae 
Wanson, John F., Frederic G., Roger W., and Franklin A. (John F, Wanson 

& Co. Ne Affidavit. 75, United ibaenbiapibe. <3 e51d.tcusdcaretrenes 
Wanson, J. Warren: Affidavit 236, United States case .......cccccace So 
‘Wanson, Roger W.: Evidence on behalf of the United States..........-... 
‘Wanson, William C.: Affidavit 27, United States case..........--.-------- 

Affidavit 60, "United SLGtON CREO. ccccweccns aca nnaas 

mepnecn, W. eh and S. G., jr. (Wanson Brothers): Affidavit 64, United States 
Wrayton, Bashsal: Evidence in behalf of Great Britain. .............2--2- 
Wreyse, Wikham: Affidavit 199, British case ...... ..-seciccsnes sodas vinenaaees 


Y. 


Young, Isaiah C.: Evidence on behalf of the United States........--..-... 
Young, Nathan, (Central Wharf Co.): Aftidavit 84, United States case...... 
Young, Hon. Robert: Evidence on behalf of Great Britain.............---- 


. Poung, Stephen (agent of Central Wharf Co., of Wellfleet): Affidavit 94, 


United StaLOs CABOL 25s) soute soaks cs cetaa eats noacbeceeseeee se 

Young, Sir Wm.: Judgment of, in the case of the Wampatuck ......--...-. 
In the case of the:As. Hi Wanson.. 2s c.cccsscecceccecees 

In the case of the A. J. Franklin Ee pres Sarat aearie te 


Z. 
mwicker, William N.: Affidavit 91, British cas0.... 02.00. ..+ 20s veccce veces 
° 


AA 


BINDING LIS) 


? 


= 

S 

Sees | 
ae 
>= 
25 
E 

— 

= 


( 


||REMOVE 


||POCKET 


| 


\ 


Acme Library Card Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN CO, LIMITED 


Pe ies 
oe . shane 
secon 

~stue 
aentdeeeu 


so 
wanes? 


te 


a3 
J 


23 
BS 


rene 


A re 


— 


+